California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., the California DRE, and the State Bar of California recently issued a warning to homeowners about the sudden and steep increase in short-sale fraud statewide, according to a statement released by the California Association of REALTORS®.
In the warning, homeowners, home buyers, real estate agents, and lenders were made aware of red flags that may appear when working with or paying a short-sale negotiator, including: A negotiator working without a license; charging up-front fees without prior written permission from the DRE to do so; adding surcharges and hidden fees to place an offer on a home; and misrepresenting current market conditions and only submitting offers on the property from an affiliated straw buyer.
Short sale negotiators and agents may use a variety of titles including: Debt negotiator, debt resolution expert, loss mitigation practitioner, foreclosure rescue negotiator, short sale processor, short sale coordinator, and short sale expeditor.
Homeowners wishing to file complaints related to short-sale fraud can do so by calling the attorney general’s office at (800) 952-5225 or filing a complaint online at www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php. To file a complaint against a lawyer, a legal specialist, or a company purporting to operate as a law firm with the California State Bar, homeowners should call (800) 843-9053 or visit www.calbar.ca.gov.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
House passes extension of National Flood Insurance Program
The U.S. House of Representatives today passed a short-term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), funding the program through Sept. 30, 2010. The extension still must pass the Senate, which now has two flood-insurance bills to consider.
Flood insurance is required for mortgages on properties in the 100-year floodplain. Congress has allowed the program to lapse three times this year, forcing many real estate transactions to be put on hold and, in some instances, cancelled. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both have provided guidelines for lenders to follow in order to close loans during the most-recent lapse. Some REALTORS® also have successfully obtained private flood insurance for clients during the lapse.
Flood insurance is required for mortgages on properties in the 100-year floodplain. Congress has allowed the program to lapse three times this year, forcing many real estate transactions to be put on hold and, in some instances, cancelled. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both have provided guidelines for lenders to follow in order to close loans during the most-recent lapse. Some REALTORS® also have successfully obtained private flood insurance for clients during the lapse.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Federal Tax Report: June 30 Closing Date May be Extended
The National Association of REALTORS® reports that Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) have filed an amendment that may be offered to a major tax and jobs bills. That bill, HR 4213, is a huge piece of legislation that would renew and extend a series of provisions (including the 15-year recovery period for leasehold improvements) through December 31, 2010. The bill also includes extensions of various government programs, including unemployment insurance and flood insurance. The bill has passed the House and is likely to be called up for debate in the Senate on or around June 15.
The Isakson-Reid amendment would apply only to purchasers who have satisfied the April 30 binding contract rule for the $8000 and $6500 tax credits. The amendment creates no new eligibility for the credit. The amendment would extend the required June 30 closing date through September 30, 2010. The introduction of the amendment does not guarantee consideration; any of several procedural obstacles could derail it. Nonetheless, NAR is hopeful that the amendment can be adopted and that the House will retain it as the bill moves to its final consideration.
The Isakson-Reid amendment would apply only to purchasers who have satisfied the April 30 binding contract rule for the $8000 and $6500 tax credits. The amendment creates no new eligibility for the credit. The amendment would extend the required June 30 closing date through September 30, 2010. The introduction of the amendment does not guarantee consideration; any of several procedural obstacles could derail it. Nonetheless, NAR is hopeful that the amendment can be adopted and that the House will retain it as the bill moves to its final consideration.
Flood Insurance Update
The Senate continued to debate legislation (H.R. 4213) that includes a year-long extension of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Since the bill also includes a number of contentious issues, Senate leaders continue to work to find the 60 votes needed for passage. Senate action is not expected until late the week of June 14th. Any changes made to the bill by the Senate will require the House to approve the modified measure.
Since June 1, 2010, the NFIP has not had statutory authority to issue new or renewal flood insurance policies, which are required for mortgages in the 100-year floodplain. NAR has been urging Congress not to wait for agreement on the larger package and immediately pass the NFIP extension provision as separate legislation.
Meanwhile, various lending authorities (FEMA, Fannie, Freddie, etc.) have issued guidance describing the documentation they will accept as proof of flood insurance purchase while the NFIP is shutdown.
Click here for more information.
Since June 1, 2010, the NFIP has not had statutory authority to issue new or renewal flood insurance policies, which are required for mortgages in the 100-year floodplain. NAR has been urging Congress not to wait for agreement on the larger package and immediately pass the NFIP extension provision as separate legislation.
Meanwhile, various lending authorities (FEMA, Fannie, Freddie, etc.) have issued guidance describing the documentation they will accept as proof of flood insurance purchase while the NFIP is shutdown.
Click here for more information.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Red Alert SB 1178 When is Enough, Enough?
The Big Banks Are Opposing C.A.R.'s Bill to Protect Borrowers.
C.A.R. is sponsoring SB 1178 (Corbett) to extend anti-deficiency protections to homeowners who have refinanced “purchase money” loans and are now facing foreclosure. Most homeowners didn't know that when they refinanced they lost their legal protections, and now may be personally liable for the difference between the value of the foreclosed property and the amount owed to the lender. SB 1178 will be voted on soon by the entire Senate.
One can’t help but think, “When is enough, enough?” Banks have already foreclosed upon a family’s home and now lenders can continue to hound them for additional payment. How much more money can today’s families afford to pay when they’ve already lost their homes and most likely their jobs? Are they never to have the opportunity to begin again?
California has protected borrowers from so-called "deficiency" liability on their home mortgages since the 1930s, but the evolution of mortgage finance requires that the statute be updated.
Current law says that if a homeowner defaults on a mortgage used to purchase his or her home, the homeowner's liability on the mortgage is limited to the property itself. The law has worked well since the 1930s to protect borrowers, ensure the quality of loan underwriting and allow borrowers who are brought down by financial crisis to get back on their feet.
Unfortunately, the 1930s law does not extend the protection for purchase money mortgages to loans that re-finance the original purchase debt -- even if the re-finance was only to gain a lower interest rate. Recent years of low interest rates have induced tens of thousands of homeowners to refinance their mortgages, yet almost no one realized that by re-financing their mortgage to obtain a lower rate, they were forfeiting their protections. These borrowers became personally liable for the balance of the loan.
C.A.R. is Sponsoring SB 1178 because:
C.A.R. is sponsoring SB 1178 (Corbett) to extend anti-deficiency protections to homeowners who have refinanced “purchase money” loans and are now facing foreclosure. Most homeowners didn't know that when they refinanced they lost their legal protections, and now may be personally liable for the difference between the value of the foreclosed property and the amount owed to the lender. SB 1178 will be voted on soon by the entire Senate.
One can’t help but think, “When is enough, enough?” Banks have already foreclosed upon a family’s home and now lenders can continue to hound them for additional payment. How much more money can today’s families afford to pay when they’ve already lost their homes and most likely their jobs? Are they never to have the opportunity to begin again?
California has protected borrowers from so-called "deficiency" liability on their home mortgages since the 1930s, but the evolution of mortgage finance requires that the statute be updated.
Current law says that if a homeowner defaults on a mortgage used to purchase his or her home, the homeowner's liability on the mortgage is limited to the property itself. The law has worked well since the 1930s to protect borrowers, ensure the quality of loan underwriting and allow borrowers who are brought down by financial crisis to get back on their feet.
Unfortunately, the 1930s law does not extend the protection for purchase money mortgages to loans that re-finance the original purchase debt -- even if the re-finance was only to gain a lower interest rate. Recent years of low interest rates have induced tens of thousands of homeowners to refinance their mortgages, yet almost no one realized that by re-financing their mortgage to obtain a lower rate, they were forfeiting their protections. These borrowers became personally liable for the balance of the loan.
C.A.R. is Sponsoring SB 1178 because:
- SB 1178 is fair. Home buyers, and lenders, entered into the purchase with the idea that the mortgage would be non-recourse debt, and that the lender would look to the security (the house) itself to make good on the debt if the borrower cannot. It meets the legitimate expectation of the borrowers, who have no idea that they are losing this protection by a refinance. Home owners didn't know that their refinance exposed them to personal liability, and new tax liability, on the note. It would be unfair to allow a lender, or someone that has purchased a note from a lender, to pursue the borrower beyond the value of the agreed upon security.
- SB 1178 is consistent with the intent of the original law and simply updates it for modern times. Current law was intended to ensure that if someone lost their home to foreclosure, they wouldn’t be liable for additional payment. Since the law was passed over 70 years ago, homeowners refinancing from the original loan to lower their interest rate has become a commonplace. The 1930s legislature didn’t anticipate how mortgages would change over time.
- Lenders could pursue families to collect this “deficiency debt” years down the road. Under current law, lenders have up to ten years to collect on the additional debt after a judgment has been entered on the foreclosure. Years after a family has lost their home, they could find themselves in even more financial trouble. Lenders could even sell these accounts to aggressive collection agencies or even bundle them into securities. The end result would be banks who didn’t lend responsibly in the first place coming after families for even more money that they don’t have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)