National Mortgage Settlement & Bounced Government Checks

The New York Times recently reported that when homeowners went to cash checks coming from the National Mortgage Settlement, the checks bounced - yes bounced. 

Ronnie Edward, whose home was sold in a foreclosure auction, apparently waited three years for his $3,000 check. When it arrived, he went to his local bank in Tennessee, only to learn that the funds “were not available.”  Mr. Edward was taken aback. “Is this for real?” he asked.

The Times further reports that "it is unclear how many of the 1.4 million homeowners who were mailed the first round of payments covered under the foreclosure settlement have had problems with their checks. But housing advocates from California to New York and even regulators say that in recent days frustrated homeowners have bombarded them with complaints and questions." 

"The first round of the settlement checks was mailed last week. In recent days, problems arose at Rust Consulting, a firm chosen to distribute the checks, people briefed on the matter said. After collecting the $3.6 billion from the banks, these people said, Rust failed to move the money into a central account at Huntington National Bank in Ohio, the bank that issued the checks to homeowners."

"Banking regulators, frustrated with missteps at Rust, urged the consulting firm to shore up the account Tuesday. Now, regulators say the problems are resolved, and are urging homeowners to try again. Officials worry that homeowners, weary from a process that has stretched on for years, will give up."

“We apologize to anyone who experienced problems trying to cash their checks,” a senior vice president at Rust, James Parks, said in a statement. “We are working hard and communicating with the banking regulators, the servicers, and other banks to ensure those issues are not repeated.”

This obviously will not engender much hope or trust in a system that has been mired in controversy since the housing crash that started to implode in late 2007.

Foregiveness Act Survives the Fiscal Cliff

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 has survived the "fiscal cliff," which will invariably lead to a continued increase in the number of short sales nationwide.  The "fiscal cliff" deal will extend the Act for another year, meaning that homeowners who receive debt forgiveness resulting from a foreclosure, deed in lieu, or short sale will be exempt from being taxed on that forgiven debt.

The amount extends up to two million of debt forgiven on the homeowner's principal residence.  In order for a homeowner to qualify, the forgiven debt must have been used to "buy, build, or substantially improve" their principal residence and be secured by that residence.

Will They Extend It?

So, the election is over and the "fiscal cliff" is awaiting.  Will The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 (the "Act") be extended?  Given its bi-partisan support in the past, I would venture to say that it likely will be extended another year. 

The extension of the Act is a concern for many given that the housing market is nowhere near out of the woods.  The real issue is that if the Act is not extended, borrowers in most states will have to pay income tax on the amount of any debt forgiven in a short sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or foreclosure.

However, for some property owners in Arizona, the expiration of the Act may not have any appreciable impact because of Arizona's broad anti-deficiency protections for borrowers.  Assuming your property is located on under 2 1/2 acres and utilized as a single or two-family home, the property is deemed a qualifying property for anti-deficiency protection.  Additionally, assuming your loan (and even a second loan) was used for the purchase of the home, it is deemed a non-recourse loan and and any deficiency will not be considered income because it is non-recourse debt.  See I.R.S. Publication 4681.  This IRS Publication states that "if you are not personally liable for the debt, you do not have ordinary income from the cancellation of the debt..." Therefore, in Arizona, even if the Act is not extended, you may not have any tax liability in the event of a short sale or foreclosure if your property is protected by Arizona's anti-deficiency statutes. 

Extension of The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act

For many people considering short sales or allowing their property to go to foreclosure, one of the crucial issues lately is whether Congress intends to extend The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, which is set to expire at the end of 2012. 

Here is a link to an article by Kenneth Harney from The Real Deal, which talks about where Congress is at with extending relief to homeowners.  Election year politics will certainly be at play here.

Another Affirmation of Arizona's Anti-Deficiency Protections

The Arizona Court of Appeals in Phoenix recently ruled in Independent Mortgage Company v. Alaburda, that Arizona's anti-deficiency law (A.R.S. Section 33-814(G)) protects a borrower who has a fractional interest in a vacation home. 

The Alaburdas purchased a 1/10th fractional interest in a single-family residential condo in the exclusive Villas at Seven Canyons in Sedona.  Independent Mortgage financed the Alaburda's purchase and took a note for $321,750, secured by a deed of trust on the 1/10th interest in the property.  The Alaburdas were only allowed to use the property for 28 days each year for vacation purposes. 

Well, the Alaburdas defaulted on the note and a trustee's sale was held on their 1/10th interest and Independent Mortgage took back the interest on a credit bid of $285,000.  It then filed a deficiency action against the Alaburdas, alleging a deficiency of $57,884.  The Alaburdas filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that they were protected by A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) - Arizona's anti-deficiency law for deeds of trust, against any deficiency claim.

Independent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that partial ownership in a vacation home cannot be characterized as a single family dwelling; therefore, no anti-deficiency protection existed for the Alaburdas.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Alaburdas, finding they were not liable for any deficiency.  The Court of Appeals, relying on past Arizona decisions in this realm (Pinetop Properties and Mid Kansas), held that the Alaburdas used the property as a single family vacation home; and thus, met the broad requirement under the anti-deficiency laws that the property "is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or a single two-family dwelling."  The Court rejected Independent's narrow definition of "dwelling," finding that the Alaburda's sporadic use of the property did not limit the application of the anti-deficiency protections. 

The Court also rejected Independent's argument that because the Alaburdas did not own the property as tenants in common and they were not entitled to continuous and total use of the property.  The Court ruled that the definition of "trust property" includes any interest in real property.  Further, the Court ruled that A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) does not limit its protection to only those that own all of the trust property described in the deed of trust.  To rule otherwise would have cast doubt on the protections afforded condominium owners (as in the Pinetop decision).  The Court was not going to go that direction.

This is another in the long string of factually distinguishable cases that are testing Arizona's broad application of the anti-deficiency statutes.  It is clear that many more cases are on their way up the legal chain. 

Cash Out Refinance - No More Anti-Deficiency Protections in Arizona

The Arizona Court of Appeals (Division 1 in Maricopa County) just issued an opinion entitled Helvetica v. Pasquan, which addresses the scope of Arizona's anti-deficiency protections in the judicial foreclosure (non-trustee's sale) context. 

The first issue the Court addressed is whether refinancing a purchase money loan forfeits a borrowers' anti-deficiency protection, to the extent that the proceeds from the refinancing transaction were used to satisfy the underlying purchase money obligation.  The Court held that refinancing alone does not destroy the purchase money status and the borrower does not lose the protections of Arizona's remedial anti-deficiency protections.

The Court next addressed the open question of whether a loan that funds construction of a statutorily qualifying residence (as defined in A.R.S. Section 33-729(A)) is a purchase money obligation.  The Court held that a construction loan qualifies as a purchase money obligation if: (1) the deed of trust securing the loan covers the land and the dwelling constructed on the land and the loan proceeds were in fact used to construct a residence that meets the size and use requirements set forth in A.R.S. Section 33-729(A).

Finally, the Court addressed an issue that has been hanging in the balance since 1997, when the same Court decided Bank One, Arizona v. Beauvais, which held that regardless of whether the subject workout note was an extension, renewal, or new obligation, it was a purchase money obligation and the borrower was protected by the anti-deficiency laws.  However, Bank One did not address the propriety of segregating non-purchase money portions of the loan, as Bank One abandoned that argument in that case.

On this issue, the Court of Appeals held that loan proceeds used to construct a qualifying residence (as set forth in A.R.S. Section 33-729(A)) merit anti-deficiency protection under certain circumstances, but those sums disbursed in a loan transaction for non-purchase money purposes may be traced, segregated, and recovered in a deficiency action.

This decision now opens the door for lenders to pursue borrowers who took out money in a refinance and used it for purposes other than the purchase (or construction of a property on vacant land) of a home.  While this decision is limited to judicial foreclosures, as opposed to the trustee's sale context (which accounts for almost all foreclosure sales in Arizona), the logic would seem to apply to the trustee's sale context, but it remains to be seen whether the courts will extend this ruling to the deed of trust statutes.  Stay tuned as always.

Pima County Tax Lien Sale - 2012 Update

Pima County just finished up its 2012 tax lien sale.  Pima County offered up nearly 14,000 tax liens over the two day live auction.  One thing was readily apparent this year - the competition for these liens was stiff.  The influx of private equity money into the Pima County sale was obvious.  Competition for $500 liens was nearly unheard of a few years back, but I saw bidding representatives calling out seven and eight percent for liens on manufactured homes in Avra Valley.  In years past, these liens would fetch sixteen percent all day long, but these big money players obviously had money to spend.

Each year Beth Ford, the Pima County Treasurer takes a roll call on whether to continue the live auction format, and each year she maintains the format.  Whereas Maricopa County and many other counties have gone to online auctions, Pima County maintains a live auction.  While some of the well-healed fund managers decried the result of the roll call, there is no question that the live auction format provides for a spirited auction with potentially uncertain results. 

There is not much fun in placing a secret bid and the computer generates the result.  It is far more fun to have someone throw up their paint stirring stick with a bright yellow piece of paper stapled to it with a number on it, yelling eight percent on a lien that they did not even mean to buy.  It is interesting to watch the furious bidding pace when the sale starts and compare it to when people slip into their 2:00 p.m. post-lunch comas - that is when the bidding mistakes can come out. 

It was also interesting to see thirty Richard Kiyosaki (of Rich Dad Poor Dad fame) students roll into the auction on the second day to learn how the whole tax lien process actually works.  In fact, I heard a few people say that one of the these green students signed up for a bidder number and actually bid on a lien only to go over the Treasurer and ask that the bid be reversed - proof that there are indeed pitfalls in tax lien investing and, oh by the way, you don't pick up houses for a couple hundred dollars in tax lien investing, despite what the late-night tax lien seminar peddlers claim. 

Arizona Joins the Mortgage Servicer Settlement

Arizona will receive $1.6 billion of the purported $25 billion joint federal-state settlement with the nation's five largest mortgage servicers for their role in wide-spread servicer and foreclosure abuses.  Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne's decision to join the broad settlement also means that his office has reached an agreement with Bank of America over allegations that it has violated an earlier consent agreement that was reached with Countrywide and allegations that Bank of America has systematically violated Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act. 

The agreement requires Bank of America to pay $10 million to the Arizona Attorney General to be used to: (1) avoid preventable foreclosure; (2) mitigate the effects of the mortgage and foreclosure crisis in Arizona; and (3) enhance law enforcement efforts to prevent and prosecute financial fraud or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and/or provide compensation for harm resulting from conduct alleged in the lawsuit. The agreement also requires Bank of America to pay the Attorney General’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the lawsuit.

Bank of America has also agreed to the following Arizona-specific provisions, which are not included in the broad federal-state settlement: (1) retain an unaffiliated third party to maximize the response rate for loss mitigation programs; (2) confirms that even borrowers who were previously denied for or defaulted on loss mitigation will not be prevented from applying again solely because of the previous denial or default; and (3) requires Bank of Ame to report Arizona-specific information about modifications and other assistance provided to Arizona borrowers.

Arizona’s estimated $1.6 billion share of the global settlement is broken down as follows: 

  • $1.3 billion principally for principal reduction, but also including a menu of other relief to homeowners (how this will actually be implemented obviously remains to be seen).
  • Arizona’s borrowers who lost their home to foreclosure from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011 and suffered servicing abuse will be eligible for an estimated $110.4 million in cash payments to borrowers, estimated at approximately$2,000 per borrower.
  • The value of refinancing loans to Arizona’s current, underwater borrowers will be an estimated $85.8 million.
  • The state will receive a direct payment of approximately $102.5 million (yet no mention of what this $102.5 million will be used for).

While the global settlement does not grant any immunity from criminal offenses and will not affect criminal prosecutions, as far as allegations of servicer abuse, including robo-sigining and dual-tracking go, the five largest banks have the green light to push through many of the foreclosures that have been stalled while this agreement was hammered out.  The agreement also does not prevent homeowners or investors from pursuing individual, institutional, or class action civil cases against the five servicers. The pact also enables state attorneys general and federal agencies to investigate and pursue other aspects of the mortgage crisis, including securities cases, which may be the next big fish to land.

The final agreement will be filed in the form of a consent judgment in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. and will have the authority of a court order. The consent judgment will require that Arizona’s share of the state’s direct payment be used by the Attorney General to carry out the purposes of the settlement, including to avoid preventable foreclosures, to remedy the effects of the mortgage and foreclosure crisis, and to enhance law enforcement efforts to prevent and prosecute financial fraud and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

The Perpetually Imminent AG Settlement Has Arrived

A long-vaunted settlement arising from the sixteen-month 50-state investigation into faulty bank foreclosure practices, which has perpetually been imminent, has finally concluded.  The deal was struck between federal banking officials, 49 states Attorneys General, and the five largest mortgage servicers - Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase Co., Wells Fargo Co., Citigroup Inc., and Ally Financial Inc, which will release these servicers from liability for robo-signing and other forms of servicer abuse in exchange for a host of financial "penalties."  In addition, nine other unnamed loan servicers may join the settlement later, which will notably increase the overall settlement value.  Loans owned or backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not be part of the deal.

Roughly $5 billion of the funds will be used as potential $1,800 - $2,000 payouts to hundreds of thousands of borrowers affected by the abuses and were foreclosed on between the beginning of 2008 and the end of 2011 (sorry we foreclosed, but here's a little check for your troubles).  A portion of this $5 billion will also go to the states, which can use them for legal aid services, foreclosure mitigation programs, and ongoing fraud investigations in other areas

Another $17 billion will be used as "credits" toward writing down principal on roughly one million loans mainly held in by the banks as part of their own portfolios, as opposed to loans there were originated, sold, and securitized.  Officials have said that some of the principal reductions will go toward mortgages held in private-label securities, which means that investors will take some of the hit, even though they would likely take a hit if any of the subject loans went to foreclosure.

Roughly $10 billion of the $17 billion held for principal reduction "credits" will go to borrowers who are delinquent on their mortgages. 

The banks will not get dollar-for-dollar credit for every write-down; reductions on loans bundled in private-label mortgage-backed securities, for example, will be under 50 cents on the dollar, and write-downs for second liens (mostly home equity lines of credit) will be more like 10 cents on the dollare.  Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan has stated that HUD will be able to get between $35-$40 billion in principal reduction in real dollars out of this settlement.  Good luck trying to figure out who exactly is most deserving of the write-downs.  No wonder Oklahoma's AG bowed out of this deal.  The real issue - short changing the foreclosure process has not really been addressed. 

Another $3 billion will be spent on refinancing borrowers who owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth.

As part of the deal, Bank of America will send $1 billion cash to the Federal Housing Administration.  It also appears that Nevada’s and Arizona’s suits against Countrywide and Bank of America for violating its past consent decree on mortgage servicing has been “folded into” the settlement.

California will get $18 billion of the agreement.  New York will receive $648 million in assistance from foreclosure settlement, including $495 million for principal reductions.

New York AG Eric Schneiderman will co-chair a task force with the Justice Department and HUD, reversed his previous decision to not sign onto the foreclosure deal. He was removed from the central negotiation committee last year when he tried to expand the scope of the investigation into securitization and other issues. His task force, along with California AG Kamala Harris and several other AGs, will look into secondary market and other fraud outside of the robo-signing probe.

Also as part of the deal, Schneiderman will not have to drop his suit against the banks for their use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or "MERS." 

The servicers will send plans to a federal monitor, North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith, who will have oversight responsibilities over the settlement. However, the monitoring process begins with a self-assessment from the banks through quarterly reports, which Smith and a committee can then review. This enforcement process is likely to take months to actually properly assess the settlement.

While this settlement sounds pretty large ($35-$40 billion), which, as David Dayen of Firedoglake points out, is at best, "a guess since the direction of the principal reduction is mostly at the discretion of the banks, pales in comparison to the negative equity in the country, which sits at $700 billion. And the banks have three years to implement the principal reductions, drawing out the loss on their books."  In the end, this is a pretty minor slap on the wrist.  “It’s not new money. It’s all soft dollars to the banks,” said Paul Miller, a bank analyst at FBR Capital Markets. 

Indeed, of the purported $26 billion, the five largest banks only have to pony up $5 billion in cash, which they already had reserves for.  No wonder bank stocks were all up on the news of the settlement.  Some commentators have said that this settlement "is a a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public."  So the banking oligarchy wins again - shocker.

Principal Reduction - Who's Willing to Take the Haircut?

Democrats on the House oversight committee have apparently been pushing to subpoena the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") to obtain an analysis looking at what effects principal reductions would have on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

As HousingWire has reported, FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco has long defended the agency's policy of keeping Fannie and Freddie mortgage servicers from writing down principal.  "We have been through the analytics of the underwater borrowers at Fannie and Freddie, and looked at the foreclosure alternative programs that are available, and we have concluded that the use of principal reduction within the context of a loan modification is not going to be the least-cost approach for the taxpayer."  It turns out that Mr. DeMarco's agency has yet to produce an analysis, which was requested last year by Democrats.

Several Democrats have cited a recent White Paper from the Fed allegedly acknowledging the need for principal reduction to coerce borrowers into staying in their home and provide a boost to the overall economy.  However, Fed researchers "admitted the potential benefits would be hard to quantify." 

Given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already owe the Treasury roughly $151 billion in bailouts, it should come as no surprise that many are rightfully concerned about principal reductions, even if the pain of such reductions would be spread across the American populace.  DeMarco believes instead, Congressional action is required to force him to write down principal on loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Between the two government sponsored agencies, the total of underwater mortgages is currently about $303 Billion.  The estimated loss to both agencies for principal reductions would amount to $101.7 Billion.  The scope of such a principal write down would cause great havoc for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's accounting, which would require immediate accounting losses. 

Interesting though, in the third quarter of 2011, servicers cut principal on 10,722 modifications, roughly 7.8% of all workouts during the period, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  That is not an insignificant number, given the general reluctance of any servicer to consider a principal reduction.  While this number is interesting, it does not say exactly who is doing the principal reductions.  Either way, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and many, many banks continue to face the specter of continued downward pressure on home prices, which will create additional underwater owners, which creates greater incentive to walk away (especially in non-recourse states).  We are no where close to getting out of the thicket on this one.