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.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A new federal federal task force, dubbed the "Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group" led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has sent subpoenas to the 11 largest financial institutions in the past few days as part of its investigation into possible residential mortgage-backed securities fraud. 

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who was cast off the central negotiation committee of Attorneys General trying to crack down on several securitization issues related to the major banks, seems to be gaining a foothold in his attempt to forge his own settlement with the major banks outside the realm of the federal regulators and AG Tom Miller's crew. 

Schneiderman will be joined by Delaware AG Beau Biden, Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley, Nevada AG Catherine Cortez Masto, California AG Kamala Harris and Illinois AG Lisa Madigan, several of whom refused to bow to continued pressure to try and settle legacy issues surrounding the robo-signing scandal and other securitization issues.

It is very interesting that President Obama allegedly formed this task group, which he announced during his State of the Union address Tuesday.  President Obama has come under increasing pressure to do something substantive about the ongoing foreclosure crisis, which has not been curtailed in the slightest by the introduction of yet another acronym. 

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said 15 lawyers and investigators are working with the group. The FBI will add 10 agents, and another 30 lawyers and staff will join the group, along with the

The SEC will also participate. SEC Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami said there "would be no stone unturned, no dark corner unexposed to the light."

Schneiderman, in a clear shot across the bow to the major banks commented: "We have jurisdiction to go after every aspect of the mortgage bubble and the crash of the financial market . . . We have jurisdiction over every MBS issued over the last decade with Delaware and New York joining the group."

Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, has also made clear the investigation and ongoing settlement negotiation between other state AGs and mortgage servicers over foreclosure problems would be separate and any charges would not release the banks from liability in the robo-signing scandal.

"It became clear very quickly that Eric [Schneiderman] and I shared a vision that it would be a grave injustice to hold these institutions accountable and potentially have hundreds of billions be paid to private investors and pension funds but not make sure homeowners who hold those loans who depend on being able to get those loans fixed to be able stay in those homes," Donovan said.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who has been heading up the mortgage servicer investigation, has said the resulting settlement would not release the banks from securitization or lending liabilities.

This is going to produce a very interesting political sideshow as AG Tom Miller tries to keep his band of AG's together, while Schneiderman forges ahead with the new found support of the Obama administration, which it seems only recently, was looking to help the major banks and servicers find a quick settlement to documented abuses that have been alleged by the AG's for some time now. 

The task force represents the Obama administration’s attempt to address complaints from the "Occupy" part of his constituency that it has simply failed to address the housing crisis or bring banks to account for causing it through subprime home loans that were repackaged and securitzed and sold to investors. Critics correctly point out that the Obama administration's attempts to solve the problem through government-sponsored refinancing programs and gentle begging to the banks, have been ineffective.  This is going to be a campaign issue and if the Obama administration is not going to try to spin, the Republicans certainly will.  It has been over three years since the credit crunch in earnest and the housing market had started its full-force downward spiral, and little has changed.  Not surprising to see yet another attempt by the administration to try and appease another part of the base. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anyone who has been involved in dealing with banks in the realm of loan modification have come to accept (at least at some level) that banks move with glacial speed.  Well, for those with a high credit score who actually just want to close a loan - this may be the way to go.....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fourteen U.S. mortgage servicers and their affiliates are making available a free, "impartial" Independent Foreclosure Review process (website - Independent Foreclosure Review) to certain of their borrowers, as part of certain consent orders entered into with federal bank regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

The review process was put into place by the regulators to determine how many borrowers were harmed by faulty procedures including: robo-signing, dual-track foreclosures, and a shortage of qualified staff to work with delinquent borrowers.  The process has been set up to identify customers who were part of a foreclosure action on their primary residence during the period of January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. The reviews will span nearly 4.5 million loan files and could take up to a year to complete, according to Acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh.

If eligible borrowers believe that they were financially injured as a result of servicer errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process on their primary residence, they can request a review of their foreclosure file to verify that their foreclosure process was handled properly.

An estimated 4.5 million borrowers will be notified by a letter explaining the review process and a Request for Review Form. The mailings will be staggered to better manage volumes in stages beginning Nov. 1, 2011, with an ad campaign to follow. A 1-800 number has been established as well.  A review administrator will allegedly send a confirmation one week after the borrower sends in a five-page request form.

Joe Evers, deputy comptroller for large banks at the OCC, said a remediation plan is still under development to determine how borrowers will be paid. He added that it could take months to figure out how to do that and it was difficult to estimate when a borrower would receive a check.  "It will be a lengthy process," Evers said.

The OCC said it would release the names of the independent consultants soon. The consent orders did leave room for a fine, but Evers said the fine will be determined after the reviews are completed.

So, another government led program aimed at addressing the fallout from the financial crisis brought on by the ramp up of securitization of home mortgages.  It appears that the Independent Foreclosure Review will be a time-consuming procedural morass that has no pre-defined mechansim for determining what remedies will be made available to eligilble homeowners.  Let's hope the various attorneys general are able to reach a substantive settlement with lenders and servicers that has some meat to it.

The list of participating servicers includes:

• America’s Servicing Co.
• Aurora Loan Services
• Bank of America
• Beneficial
• Chase
• Citibank
• CitiFinancial
• CitiMortgage
• Countrywide
• EMC
• EverBank/EverHome Mortgage Company
• GMAC Mortgage
• HFC
• HSBC
• IndyMac Mortgage Services
• MetLife Bank
• National City Mortgage
• PNC Mortgage
• Sovereign Bank
• SunTrust Mortgage
• U.S. Bank
• Wachovia Mortgage
• Washington Mutual (WaMu)
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 29, 2011, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. announced that the firm would begin exiting the tax lien business.  Plymouth Park was a New Jersey-based unit of Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., but was doing business as XSPAND and headed by a former New Jersey governor.  Plymouth Park was a major purchaser of tax liens throughout the country and one of the largest purchasers of tax liens at the Pima County tax lien sale over the past several years.  According to a Bloomberg article, J.P. Morgan claims that the unit is "not central to its operations." 

While most of the media outlets were quick to report that J.P. Morgan was shedding its tax lien unit, few have given any analysis as to why.  However, according to Bloomberg, Plymouth Park "was among companies that received grand-jury subpoenas in 2009 as part of a U.S. Justice Department antitrust probe of bidding at municipal tax-lien auctions in New Jersey according to an August 2009 prospectus for New York City tax-lien bonds that were serviced by the firm.  The Bloomberg article goes on to say: "Antitrust officials investigated whether investors colluded to limit competition on sales to win a higher return, said Vincent Belluscio, executive director of the Tax Collectors & Treasurers Association of New Jersey." 

Why exactly J.P. Morgan is exiting the tax lien market may remain unknown to the general public, but others entities have quickly filled J.P. Morgan's void.  Indeed, at the 2011 tax lien sale in Pima County, the same representative that used to bid for J.P. Morgan was believed to be bidding on behalf of Fortress, a large hedge fund. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Arizona Supreme Court just weighed in on the issue of attorney's fees in tax lien foreclosure cases.  Under Arizona Revised Statutes section 42-18206 (2010), a tax lien purchaser is entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorney fees if the delinquent taxpayer redeems the lien after the purchaser commences a foreclosure action.  After years of litigation, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a tax lien purchaser is only entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred before the tax lien is redeemed and a certificate of redemption issues.

The court of appeals noted that this statute neither places a "temporal limit" on recoverable fees nor limits eligibility for fees "to certain matters and not others."  The Arizona Supreme Court noted though although the legislature did not expressly place temporal and subject matter restrictions in the text of A.R.S. § 42-18206, such restrictions are apparent from the context of the statutes governing tax lien redemption.

The Court went on to say that A.R.S. § 42-18206 protects against a loss to the purchaser from pre-redemption litigation, but it does not ensure a profit. Nor should it subsidize unlimited litigation to contest redemption in pursuit of that profit.

In its most foreceful reasoning, the Court stated: "Thus, interpreting § 42-18206 to allow post-redemption fees and costs skews the statute to subsidize unsuccessful litigation. Such a reading creates an incentive for protracted and potentially meritless litigation. It allows tax lien purchasers to coerce landowners otherwise able to redeem to forfeit their property by the threat of continued litigation conducted at the landowners' expense. We discern neither a legislative intent nor any sound policy reason to award fees for a losing argument, especially when doing so encourages protracted litigation, discourages redemption, and interferes with litigants' and the courts' interests in finality."

Though this decision does not undercut the basic protections afforded tax lien purchasers in the statutory scheme, unfortunately, this decision does leave tax lien purchasers slightly exposed to the costs associated with having to file for a judgment after a property owner redeems and refuses or is unable to pay the costs and fees incurred by the tax lien purchaser.  A strict reading of this opinion seems to indicate that seeking a tax lien holder seeking a judgment after a redemption, for failure to pay the pre-redemption costs and fees incurred, will not be recoverable.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Housing Wire recently reported that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has directed the two government sponsored agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to align their guidelines for servicing delinquent mortgages.

Previously, they maintained different requirements for how their mortgage servicers would treat loan backed by Freddie and Fannie.  This new push for alignment may be the death knell for the practice of "dual tracking."  Dual tracking has been a common practice by servicers of working on a loan modification at the same time as it is purshing a loan towards foreclosure.  The new FHFA forced allignment will push servicers into engaging the borrower as soon as they become delinquent and will prevent the initiation of the foreclosure process if the borrower and servicer are working toward solving the delinquency in a good-faith effort.

Housing Wire furtehr reports that "under the new requirements, servicers must engage in a single track for considering foreclosure alternatives up to the 120th day of delinquency" and "must also perform a formal review of the case to confirm the borrower was considered before starting foreclosure. Even then, servicers are required to continue work with the homeowner on other alternatives." 

Servicers for both Fannie and Freddie will also apprewarded and penalized the same under the new guidelines.

"FHFA's directive to align Enterprise policies for servicing delinquent mortgages should result in earlier servicer engagement to identify the best solution available for homeowners, given their individual circumstances," said FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco.

Freddie Mac CEO Ed Haldeman said: "Alignment of key servicing practices between our two companies will help servicers . . . to streamline their operations and more effectively target resources to distressed borrowers . . . For example, it will simplify the process for seeking help by giving borrowers one application to fill out and servicers one application to review for all Freddie Mac loan modifications and foreclosure alternatives."

This allignment, if actually followed by Fannie and Freddie-backed servicers will have a huge impact for borrowers seeking to modify the terms of their loans.  Indeed, the dual-track process is precisely what has led to many unsuspecting homeowners losing their homes, as they never understood that dual tracking was the policy.  Perhaps the common lament of "how could they sell my home, I was in the middle of a loan modification" may be a thing of the past.  I won't be holding my breath on that one.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I took three different calls this past week from homeowners who have sought the assistance of Bank of America's servicing subsidiary, BAC Home Loans Solutions, for a loan modification.  What most unsuspecting homeowners do not realize is that BAC simply has no vested interest in actually making good on the false promises it continues to peddle to these homeowners.  Is it any wonder that the Arizona Attorney General has intervened.  In summing up the over 400 complaints it has received about Bank of America and its servicer BAC's handling of loan modifications, the A.G. states the following in its Complaint against these entities: 

"Defendants have continued to engage in widespread consumer fraud by misrepresenting to Arizona consumers whether they were eligible for modifications of their mortgage loans, when Bank of America would make a decision on their loan modification requests, whether Bank of America had approved their modification requests, why Bank of America declined their modification requests, and whether and when Bank of America would foreclose upon their homes."

BAC, like many other servicers, systematically lulls homeowners into believing that a loan modification is something other than a pipe dream.  However, and as noted in the A.G.'s Complaint, BAC, again, like many other servicers, has been "dual tracking" delinquent loans.  While BAC promises that it is working on a homeowner's loan modification, it is at the same time, in a different department, pushing forward with a foreclosure action.  Indeed, servicers habitually allow howeowners to make lower "trial modification" payments and then send the homeowner a Notice of Intent to Accelerate.  So the servicers accept the lower payment and then use the fact that the homeowner is paying less each month to create lump sum delinquencies that most homeowners cannot pay. 

Indeed, in one case I reviewed this past week, the homeowner had never missed a payment, but sought a loan modification to try and ease their struggle.  They sent in the requisite paperwork, then sent it in again, then sent it in again.  They were promised a lower trial modification payment, which they dutifully made each month for several months, and then they received word a Notice to Accelerate.  While BAC was happy to take the new trial modification payments each month and cash those checks, it was at the same time reporting to credit agencies that the homeowners were delinquent each month (due to the difference between the old payment and the lower trial modification payment).  BAC was again dual tracking this loan towards foreclosure.

We would have been far better off if the banks had just said to homeowners, "Sorry, we are not offering any loan modifications.  Make your payment or lose your house."  Instead, in no small part due to the federal HAMP program, howeowners are instead lulled into the very mistaken belief that they are going to receive a loan modification.  Well, guess what, BAC, like most other laon servicers, get paid whether they string you along or foreclose.  Indeed, it is best to "dual track" by stringing people along and then foreclosing on them.  That way, the servicer makes the most money - even if it is contrary to the best interest of the actual investor holding the mortgage.  Perverse times we live in, eh?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A great article by Don Lee - Tribune Washington Bureau - highlights how underwater mortgages are a serious contributor to the dismal performance of the national economy.  It is estimated that there are 15 million homeowners who are undewater on their mortgages, many of whom can and continue to pay on their mortgage, but have no means to refinance and are stuck paying on homes in which the value may not return for 10-15 years.  In other words, they are stuck.  Lenders are not likely to offer any modifications so long as they are current on their loans.  So for many, it is continue to pay and hope for a quick (though unlikely) recovery in home prices, walk away and suffer the attendant consequences, or hope that lenders become more proactive in offering modification or refinance options.  If the economy continues to drag, which by all accounts it will (even with new quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve), the threat of more strategic walkaways in non-recourse states is likely to become a more serious problem.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A San Diego police officer and his wife recently pleaded not guilty to accusations that they trashed their foreclosed home in Riverside County, taking $44,000 in appliances and fixtures with them when they moved out.  Both have been charged with one felony count of damaging or carrying away items from a foreclosed property.  Damage was estimated at over $165,000.

If convicted, they could face up to four years in prison.  As reported in the Press-Enterprise and the Signon Sand Diego, the damage included stones smashed off the facade, dye poured on carpets, wiring pulled out of walls, spray-painted the walls, cut and chopped-down shrubs tossed in the backyard swimming pool, and pulled out electrical wires and cut them.

Supervising Deputy District Attorney Arthur Chang said the damage was "indicative of a great deal of maliciousness and bitterness."  Robert Acosta's attorney, Albert Arena, raised questions about the ownership of the property and the conduct of the Acostas' lender. He said it was "a stretch" to charge the couple with a crime

Robert Acosta is a 12-year veteran of the San Diego Police Department and served eight years in the U.S. Marine Corps.  San Diego police officials said Acosta is on administrative leave.

Riverside County authorities said this is the only case they can recall in which a former homeowner has been charged with a crime for damage to a foreclosure.

A witness saw the Acostas June 12 removing items from the home, court records state. Later, investigators recovered $7,920 in stolen property, including appliances, chandeliers, shutters, iron gates and exterior lights in the Acostas' storage units in San Diego County.

While a likely majority of homeowners in Arizona will be protected by the anti-deficiency statutes in the event of a foreclosure, if a homeowner causes "waste," the lender can seek recourse against those borrowers.  It will be interesting to see whether criminal charges become more prevalent as the foreclosure crisis continues.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 20, 2010, the White House issued the following Fact Sheet: 

FACT SHEET: Federal Government Efforts to Support Accountability, Stability and Clarity in the Housing Market

Today the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Office of Thrift Supervision met to discuss ongoing interagency action to support accountability, stability, and clarity in the housing market and residential mortgage backed securities markets. 

We are working together to review practices that do not comply with state foreclosure law or applicable federal laws, including taking the following actions:

• The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has been reviewing servicers for compliance with loss
mitigation requirements.  These reviews are being broadened to include a larger range of processes,
focusing in particular on servicer procedures during the final stages of the foreclosure process.  These
reviews are expected to be complete within nine weeks. 

• The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, led by the Department of Justice, has brought together more than 20 federal agencies, 94 US Attorney’s Offices and dozens of state and local partners to share information about foreclosure and servicing practices.  The Task Force’s collaborative efforts are ensuring that the full resources of the federal and state regulatory and enforcement authorities are being brought to bear in addressing this issue.  

• The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force has also been coordinating with State Attorneys General in their joint review of “robo-signing” practices in foreclosure cases.  

• The Department of Justice, including through the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, is also working
with regulators to investigate and, where appropriate, litigate against servicers, their law firms, and
third-party providers regarding their foreclosure and bankruptcy processes.  

• The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to remind
servicers of their contractual and legal responsibilities in foreclosure processing.  On October 13, FHFA directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement a policy framework for dealing with possible foreclosure process deficiencies that requires servicers to review their foreclosure processes and fix any processing problems they identify.  The FHFA policy framework includes specific steps servicers should take to remedy mistakes in foreclosure affidavits so that the information contained in the affidavits is correct and that the affidavits are completed in compliance with applicable law. 

• The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) directed all large national bank servicers on
September 29 to review their foreclosure management processes, including file review, affidavit
processing and signatures, to ensure that the processes are fully compliant with all applicable state
laws. 

• The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve System are jointly examining
foreclosure and securitization practices at the nation's largest servicers.  The examinations will include intensive review of the firms’ policies, procedures, and internal controls related to loan modifications, foreclosures and securitizations, seeking to determine whether systematic weaknesses are leading to improper foreclosures.  The reviews will also evaluate controls over the selection and management of third-party service providers.  

• In coordination with the work of the other agencies, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) is reviewing the mortgage related policies, foreclosure processes and staffing levels of the largest servicers it supervises.   The OTS has gathered preliminary information through its regional offices about the servicer practices across the country.  It also issued correspondence on October 8 to all savings associations involved in servicing residential mortgages requiring the immediate review of their actual practices associated with the execution of documents related to the foreclosure process.  

• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is participating in the reviews by the OCC, the Federal
Reserve System, and the OTS of the foreclosure and securitization practices of the largest mortgage
servicers in its role as back-up supervisor.  The FDIC also is verifying that the servicers it supervises do not exhibit the problems that others have identified as well as reviewing the processes used by
servicers of loans subject to loss share agreements and other loans from receiverships of failed banks. The regulators are also evaluating foreclosure and securitization practices in electronic registration systems.

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is monitoring servicers under existing public orders to confirm
proper servicing and foreclosure processes, is conducting reviews in line with past servicing abuses
and monitoring the market closely for any fraud or foreclosure scams.

• The US Treasury has implemented a strong compliance framework for the Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP) servicers. On October 6, Treasury issued a notice to HAMP servicers
reminding them of their requirement to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, as well as a
reminder that prior to foreclosure sale, servicers must certify to the foreclosure attorney or trustee that
all loss mitigation options have been considered and exhausted.   Treasury also recently instructed its
HAMP compliance agent to review internal policies, procedures, and processes for completing the pre- foreclosure certifications at the ten largest servicers.

• In addition to its role enforcing the federal securities laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) has issued proposed rules that would provide greater transparency and disclosures in the
securitization market and provide investors with additional tools to evaluate actions in the securitization market. 

I do not wish to come across as too jaded and skeptical, but this trumped up effort by the full panoply of the Federal government seems to be a well-timed effort to say that the administration is doing something about the foreclosure disaster.  With the mid-term elections right around the corner, it is only appropriate that it appear that the government watchdogs are doing something, albeit reactionary to scrutinize lenders' foreclosure efforts. 

While it seems a nice gesture, I am much more concerned with why we have thrown so much money at the flailing HAMP program (See Jon Prior's article on why TARP has failed) and why we ever allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get into the mortgage-backed securities market in the first place.  We the taxpayers are the ones mopping this up now. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has served as the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 2008, is looking to recoup on serious losses that the government sponsored entities have suffered as a result of their heavy purchases of mortgage-backed securities during the hey days of the real estate bubble.  The FHFA has hired Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, a large law firm out of L.A. and has issued sixty-five subpoenas to various banks.  The probe is focused on private-label securities that were originated by mortgage companies, packaged by Wall Street firms, and then sold to investors.  This has the potential to throw open the floodgates of litigation against originators of loans who securitized these loans and sold them to investors like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

With the financial backing of the US government and a large LA law firm set to push forward, the stage is set for a serious inquiry into the originating and securitization practices of many institutions.  Quoting Joshua Rosner of Graham Fischer & Co, the Wall Street Journal recently reported if the FHFA is successful in proving that loan files didn't meet underwriting standards or that their ownership chain wasn't properly transferred during the securitization process, that could pave the way for other investors to make similar challenges. 

Fannie and Freddie were two of the largest investors in mortgage backed securities during the height of the real estate bubble.  "Those securities were often backed by subprime loans and mortgages that required little or no documentation of borrower incomes, which deteriorated sharply once home prices fell."  Indeed, Fannie and Freddie purchased $227 billion of bonds backed by subprime and other risky loans in 2006 and 2007. 

In the end, they paid the price for trying to keep pace with the returns that investment banks and retail banks were making, all of which led to the financial crisis in 2008.  Once again, the US taxpayer is on the hook for those losses, which the FHFA is now trying to recoup.  However, some analysts are saying that FHFA is going to have a hard time proving that Fannie and Freddie, which "touted their unparalleled mortgage-market expertise," didn't know what they were buying.  Either way, the new associates at Quinn Emanuel are going to have plenty to do in meeting their 2000+ hour billable requirement and the US taxpayer paying dearly for those new associates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MERS or the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, little known before the foreclosure tsunami struck, was developed in the early 1990's by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans, streamline the mortgage process through electronic commerce, and eliminate the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.  MERS describes itself as "innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked."  Sounds nice, right? 

Well, as detailed by Floyd Norris of the New York Times in his article "Some Sand in the Gears of Securitizing," and elsewhere, MERS has been under attack for its part in the massive securitization of the American housing market. 

Indeed, as alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Executive Trustee Services, et al., MERS was a very serious contributor to the financial crisis: "Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . . . to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans." 

In other words, without MERS, transparency would have ruled the day, counties would have been paid their recording fees, consumers, attorneys, and title companies could easily track chain of title, and foreclosures would have been processed much more effeciently.  Instead, we have servicers with their own vested interests pitted against investors who cannot readily make decisions about their pooled notes; thus, the entire foreclosure process grinds away glacially, subject to legal attack at every turn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an effort to curb the predatory practices of certain "loan modification" companies, claiming to offer loan modification services for an upfront fee, the Arizona Legislature recently passed several laws with some good sized teeth - codified at A.R.S. Sections 44-1378-1378.08.

A.R.S. Section 44-1378.02, for example, prevents a "foreclosure consultant," as defined in A.R.S. Section 44-1378, from doing the following: 

 1. Claim, demand, charge, collect or receive any compensation until after the foreclosure consultant has fully performed each covered service that the foreclosure consultant contracted to perform or represented that the foreclosure consultant would perform.

2. Claim, demand, charge, collect or receive any fee, interest or other compensation for any reason that is not fully disclosed to the homeowner.

3. Take any wage assignment, lien on real or personal property, assignment of a homeowner's equity or other interest in a residence in foreclosure or other security for the payment of compensation.

4. Receive any consideration from any third party in connection with a covered service provided to a homeowner unless the consideration is first fully disclosed to the homeowner.

5. Acquire, directly or indirectly, any interest in the residence in foreclosure of a homeowner with whom the foreclosure consultant has contracted to perform a covered service.

6. Accept a power of attorney from a homeowner for any purpose, other than to inspect documents as provided by law.

A.R.S. Section 44-1378.05 is where the teeth are, because it contains some serious financial downside to continuing the practices prohibited above: 

A homeowner who is injured as a result of a foreclosure consultant's violation of this article may bring an action against the foreclosure consultant to recover damages caused by the violation, together with reasonable attorney fees and costs.

B. If the homeowner prevails in the action, the court may award punitive damages as determined by a jury or by a court sitting without a jury, but the punitive damages shall be at least one and one-half times the amount awarded to the homeowner as actual damages.

The Arizona Attorney General is also given powers to proceed under these new laws.  Even before these laws took effect in July 2010, the Attorney General filed suit against Scottsdale-based Guardian Group, LLC, a "loan reduction" service company.

According to a press release from the Attorney General, the company, which markets nationally, made claims it would negotiate with lenders to purchase a consumer’s note for less than face value and sell the note in an investment package to a third-party investor.  Guardian Group then told the consumer that it would modify the rates and terms of the consumer’s mortgage loans and reduce the principal owed to 90 percent of current market value.  

The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleges the Guardian Group fraudulently represented itself as providing loan reduction services to homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments. The company charged consumers an average advance fee of $1,595 for mortgage loan refinancing services, which it rarely provided.  It collected fees from more than 2,500 consumers for enrollment in its Principal Reduction Program since August 2009. 

The Guardian Group is without question not the only company out there doing the same thing.  As the Attorney General commented on The Guardian Group, "this company has exploited the financial struggles of hundreds of homeowners by promising them mortgage relief it couldn’t deliver."  

First it was the greed of the loan originators and general American public, then it was the greed of the Wall Street firms that securitized all these loans, then it was the greed of the Wall Street bond firms that repackaged these loans into collateralized debt obligations, then it was the greed of the ratings agencies who had no clue of what they were rating, then it was the greed of the investors who didn't know what they were buying, be it collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps -  all of which led to the meltdown in 2008. 

Now it is the greed of the mortgage loan servicers intent on stringing home owners along so they can make more fees and the "loan modification" scammers that are intent on getting money upfront and then do little to nothing to earn it.  Glad to see a good law in place with some real teeth.  Problem is, any recourse against these likely "fly-by-night" companies is going to be tough and expensive at the front end.  Always more difficult to chase the money after the fact.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an effort to curb the predatory practices of certain "loan modification" companies, claiming to offer loan modification services for an upfront fee, the Arizona Legislature recently passed several laws with some good sized teeth - codified at A.R.S. Sections 44-1378-1378.08.

A.R.S. Section 44-1378.02, for example, prevents a "foreclosure consultant," as defined in A.R.S. Section 44-1378, from doing the following: 

 1. Claim, demand, charge, collect or receive any compensation until after the foreclosure consultant has fully performed each covered service that the foreclosure consultant contracted to perform or represented that the foreclosure consultant would perform.

2. Claim, demand, charge, collect or receive any fee, interest or other compensation for any reason that is not fully disclosed to the homeowner.

3. Take any wage assignment, lien on real or personal property, assignment of a homeowner's equity or other interest in a residence in foreclosure or other security for the payment of compensation.

4. Receive any consideration from any third party in connection with a covered service provided to a homeowner unless the consideration is first fully disclosed to the homeowner.

5. Acquire, directly or indirectly, any interest in the residence in foreclosure of a homeowner with whom the foreclosure consultant has contracted to perform a covered service.

6. Accept a power of attorney from a homeowner for any purpose, other than to inspect documents as provided by law.

A.R.S. Section 44-1378.05 is where the teeth are, because it contains some serious financial downside to continuing the practices prohibited above: 

A homeowner who is injured as a result of a foreclosure consultant's violation of this article may bring an action against the foreclosure consultant to recover damages caused by the violation, together with reasonable attorney fees and costs.

B. If the homeowner prevails in the action, the court may award punitive damages as determined by a jury or by a court sitting without a jury, but the punitive damages shall be at least one and one-half times the amount awarded to the homeowner as actual damages.

The Arizona Attorney General is also given powers to proceed under these new laws.  Even before these laws took effect in July 2010, the Attorney General filed suit against Scottsdale-based Guardian Group, LLC, a "loan reduction" service company.

According to a press release from the Attorney General, the company, which markets nationally, made claims it would negotiate with lenders to purchase a consumer’s note for less than face value and sell the note in an investment package to a third-party investor.  Guardian Group then told the consumer that it would modify the rates and terms of the consumer’s mortgage loans and reduce the principal owed to 90 percent of current market value.  

The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleges the Guardian Group fraudulently represented itself as providing loan reduction services to homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments. The company charged consumers an average advance fee of $1,595 for mortgage loan refinancing services, which it rarely provided.  It collected fees from more than 2,500 consumers for enrollment in its Principal Reduction Program since August 2009. 

The Guardian Group is without question not the only company out there doing the same thing.  As the Attorney General commented on The Guardian Group, "this company has exploited the financial struggles of hundreds of homeowners by promising them mortgage relief it couldn’t deliver."  

First it was the greed of the loan originators and general American public, then it was the greed of the Wall Street firms that securitized all these loans, then it was the greed of the Wall Street bond firms that repackaged these loans into collateralized debt obligations, then it was the greed of the ratings agencies who had no clue of what they were rating, then it was the greed of the investors who didn't know what they were buying, be it collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps -  all of which led to the meltdown in 2008. 

Now it is the greed of the mortgage loan servicers intent on stringing home owners along so they can make more fees and the "loan modification" scammers that are intent on getting money upfront and then do little to nothing to earn it.  Glad to see a good law in place with some real teeth.  Problem is, any recourse against these likely "fly-by-night" companies is going to be tough and expensive at the front end.  Always more difficult to chase the money after the fact.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Let's start out with this - I'm incensed today.  The newest cottage industry to crop up in the wake of the foreclosure tsunami are the loan modifiers.  Many of the most notorious loan modification companies were headed by the same individuals that were all to happy to originate loans that never should have been considered in the go-go days of the real estate bubble bath.  Now, there may be some legit people out there really trying to help out with loan modifications, including some attorneys perhaps, but most do not require money upfront and promise things they can't deliver on.

I met with someone today who just came from the courthouse steps after learning that his home had been sold at a trustee's sale.  He showed up at the sale with all the money necessary (so he thought at least) to reinstate his loan.  No can do.  The problem for him is that under Arizona's lender-friendly statutory scheme for trustee's sales, he was required to come forward with payment by 5pm the day before the trustee's sale.  He didn't know that because the average person on the street would have no reason to know that - that is what we attorneys are apparently for. 

The reason I am incensed is that many in the loan modification industry (and many lawyers for that matter), don't understand the law or the dynamics of how servicers are processing loan modifications.  It is well established that the servicers of loans have their own financial interest at heart when it comes to loan modifications and they are not too terribly interested in saving people from foreclosure.  Indeed, the loan servicers, who often have competing interests to the very investors that own the loans, don't much care whether they foreclose or not, as they get paid.  In the end, loan modifications are expensive, time consuming and do not pad the servicers' bottom line, and the servicers run a parallel track of claiming to consider a loan modification and moving along the foreclosure at the same time.  See Diane Thompson's very well researched and explained article on why servicers foreclose rather than modify loans.  It is a relative expose on the lending industry. 

Had the loan modification company that was supposedly trying to help this individual understood the law and the dynamics of how servicers lull borrowers into the trap of believing that a modification is forthcoming, while processing the foreclosure at the same time, this company would have known that this guy needed to come due with the money the day before the sale or attempt to stop the sale if he had a defense.  This company falsely believed that the modfication was coming too - a big mistake.  This guy paid $1,500 and lost his house.  A quick trip to an attorney could have saved this fiasco.  We need more education out there - that is for certain.  Sad day - yet another preventable foreclosure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In one of my prior blog posts (April 6, 2010 - "Tax Lien Foreclosure: Ready, Willing, and Able to Redeem"), I wrote about an unpublished Memorandum Decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2 - Leveraged Land, Montgomery, v. Hodges, 2 CA-CV 2009-0057.  In that Decision, the Court overturned a default judgment that a tax lien investor had obtained through service by publication in a newspaper, which restored the owner of record's ability to pay off the delinquent property taxes.  Service by publication is often the only way to notify someone about a pending lawsuit, because in many cases all efforts to personally serve someone prove unsuccessful.  Because service by publication is not the preferred manner of serving defendants, the courts allow a default judgment that is obtained through serving a defendant by publication to be challenged for up to a year after the judgment is obtained. 

In the Leveraged Land case, even though service by publication was warranted, the Court, based on prior precedent, ruled that the owner of record, because he was ready, willing, and able to pay off the tax lien, should be entitled to do so.  Additionally, the Court ruled that the tax lien investor must understand that any default judgment obtained through service by publication is open to attack for up to a year, and the fact that the tax lien investor later decided to sell the property to a third-party before that time period had run was their own fault.

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued a written Opinion stemming from the same litigation.  In this set of appeals, the Court was faced with two primary issues on appeal: (1) were Appellants Raven II Holdings, LLC ("Raven"), Hanna 120 Holdings, LLC ("Hanna"), and Bingham Arizona Land, LLC ("Bingham"), the subsequent purchaser of the property from Leveraged Land, LLC,  "bona fide purchasers" of the property that was the subject of the tax lien foreclosure case? and (2) was Leveraged Land entitled to recover all of its attorneys' fees under A.R.S. Section 42-18206. 

A "bona fide purchaser" is used to refer to one who purchases property for value with notice.  Regarding the issue of whether Raven, Hanna, and Bingham were "bona fide purchasers," the Court held that because Leveraged Land properly recorded the Treasurer's Deed and the Default Judgment was attached to it, all subsequent purchasers were given "constructive notice" that the Default Judgment was subject to legal challenge, and "the risk of disruptions to any subsequent conveyances of the foreclose property fell squarely on" Leveraged Land and its successors.

Leveraged Land appealed the trial court's award to it of attorney's fees in the amount of $1,500.00. The trial court ruled that the amount of attorney's fees that Leveraged Land requested was "unreasonable," though it provided no basis for such a determination.  Leveraged Land argued on appeal that such an award was arbitrary and had no reasonable basis, especially when it had already been determined by the Court of Appeals that service was done correctly, thus entitling Leveraged Land to recovery of its fees if the owner of record later redeemed, which is what Hodges did in this case.  Hodges, who was permitted to redeem the tax lien, argued that Leveraged Land was not entitled to attorney's fees it incurred in opposing his redemption.  The Court ruled that, over a dissenting opinion, a plain reading of A.R.S. 42-18206 leads to the conclusion that Leveraged Land is entitled to recover its attorney's fees even if it was eventually unsuccessful in its appeal on the issue of whether Hodges was entitled to redeem the tax lien.  The Court of Appeals, ruling that the trial court had abused its discretion, has remanded the case back to the trial court for a determination of the amount of attorney's fees that Leveraged Land is entitled to.

One has to wonder just how much the subject property was worth in order to justify the level of expenditures in the underlying case, which resulted in three different appeals.  In the end, the Court of Appeals made it clear that A.R.S. Section 42-18206 is unambiguous and permits a party to recover its attorney's fees if the owner of record redeems a tax lien after proper service of process, and will leave it to the trial courts to determine what fees are "reasonable."  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It never ceases to amaze me how astute and opportunistic people can be when it comes to making money.  In the Arizona tax lien foreclosure realm, there exists a group of opportunistic investors that derisively have been called "bottom feeders" or "title raiders."  What these people do is comb public records to find pending tax lien foreclosure cases.  The easiest way to find a pending tax lien foreclosure case is to search for a recorded Lis Pendens, which is a recorded public document that gives notice that a particular real property is subject to pending litigation.  A Lis Pendens is used in real property cases where title is at issue. 

Once these "bottom feeders" find the recorded Lis Pendens and the associated tax lien foreclosure lawsuit, they quickly write to or physically approach the owner of record and attempt to purchase the property on the cheap, because both the owner of record and the "bottom feeder" recognize that the owner of record is likely to lose the property anyway, as the owner is unable to pay off the delinquent property taxes.  If the owner of record is willing to sell the property on the cheap, then the "bottom feeder" purchases the property and the owner conveys the property.  Under the prior A.R.S. Section 42-18206, which was recently amended, if the owner of record redeems the tax lien after having been served personally or by publication in the action, judgment shall be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the person for the costs incurred by the plaintiff, including reasonable attorney's fees to be determined by the court.  The reason these individuals have been derisively referred to as "bottom feeders" is that by obtaining the subject property prior to the owner of record being served, the prior owner and the current owner (the "bottom feeder") avoid having to pay the tax lien investor's attorney's fees and costs, which are not insignificant. 

Well, this all changed on July 29, 2010, when changes to A.R.S. Section 42-18206 became effective.  A.R.S. Section 42-18206 now states (with changes highlighted): Any person who is entitled to redeem under article 4 of this chapter may redeem at any time before judgment is entered, notwithstanding that an action to foreclose has been commenced, but if the person who redeems has been served personally or by publication in the action, or if the person became an owner after the action began and redeems after a notice is recorded pursuant to section 12-1191, judgment shall be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the person for the costs incurred by the plaintiff, including reasonable attorney fees to be determined by the court.

This new law will severely hamper the ability for the "bottom feeders" to obtain properties from owners prior to those owners being served with notice of the lawsuit.  What this new law does not do away with is the continuing risk to tax lien investors who must still get owners served before they pay off the tax lien.  If the owner of record pays off the tax lien prior to being served, the tax lien investor must eat the costs and attorney's fees he or she has incurred.  Nonetheless, this change in the law will unquestionably limit some of the downside risk of tax lien investing, as the "bottom feeders" will face the very real risk that they will be responsible for the tax lien investor's fees and costs incurred. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tax lien investors need to understand the importance of sub-taxing their tax liens in Arizona.  When a tax lien investor purchases a tax lien at the February Pima County tax lien sale, for example, that investor then has the right to purchase the next year's delinquent taxes if the owner does not pay the subsequent year's taxes prior to June 1st of each year.  

For example, if a tax lien investor purchased a 2008 tax lien at the 2010 Pima County tax lien sale and failed to sub-tax in subsequent years, that tax lien investor subjects herself to another tax lien investor redeeming out her position, thus losing her priority position.  Additionally, and perhaps more troubling, is the ability of an owner of record to redeem the tax lien investor's tax lien.  Suppose the tax lien investor, who owns the 2008 tax lien, wishes to begin the tax lien foreclosure process after three years (2013).  In this example, all the owner of record would have to do is redeem the 2008 tax lien and the investor's lawsuit has been thwarted.  However, had the 2008 tax lien holder sub-taxed the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxes, not only would there have been no competing tax lien holders, in order for the owner of record to redeem, that owner would have to pay the delinquent taxes for 2008 through 2012, as opposed to just 2008. 

While there is certainly the possibility of successfully obtaining a property by only buying a single year's tax lien and not sub-taxing, the chances of redemption by another tax lien holder or the owner of record are substantially higher.  If you can afford to sub-tax your liens, do it. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those unfamiliar with the tax lien process, delinquent real property taxes become a lien on an owner's real property.  To secure the payment of unpaid delinquent taxes, county treasurers sell tax liens, which are interest-bearing investments. See A.R.S. § 42-18101. Upon a tax lien sale (held in February of each year by each of the 15 Arizona counties) or an over-the-counter sale, the county treasurer of each county issues the purchaser a certificate of purchase, known as a tax lien certificate for a given year or multiple years.

Interestingly, certain counties require tax lien certificate purchasers to pay the aggregate amount of
all delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and charges on the property for current and preceding years, including those encompassed by outstanding, still unredeemed, tax lien certificates held by other tax lien investors.  However, not every county has the same policy.  For example, in Maricopa County and Pima County (exercising their apparent leeway under A.R.S. §42-18104(C)), the county treasurers sell tax liens that encompass delinquencies for tax years not previously sold to private investors, but do not require the purchaser to also pay delinquencies for years encompassed by earlier tax lien certificates. Under this practice, separate purchasers in separate years may acquire competing tax lien certificates on the same parcel, which creates interesting situations in practice.

I just recently had a case in Pima County in which my client owned a 2004 tax lien and another investor owned tax liens for for 2005-2008.  My client began the tax lien foreclosure proceeding in 2009 (three years after the tax lien was first made available for sale - 2006).  However, in early 2010, the owner of the 2005-2008 tax liens also began its own tax lien foreclosure case for its 2005 tax lien.  Under A.R.S. §42-18151(A)(3), any person who has a legal or equitable claim in the property, including a certificate of purchase of a different date may redeem a tax lien.  Practically speaking, that meant in my case that either tax lien holder could redeem the other tax lien holder's position out.  In order to preserve my client's priority lien position (2004 tax lien), he redeemed the other tax lien holder (the holder of the 2005-2008 tax liens). 

The very real risk that my client now faces is the possibility that the owner of record or an interested party in the real property could redeem his tax lien, in which case he would be in the lurch for the amount that he just paid to redeem out the other tax lien holder.  This case emphasizes the importance of taking advantage of the opportunity to pay subsequent year's delinquent taxes, which essentially attach to the prior year's tax lien.  This avoids this scenario in which another tax lien investor is able to buy competing tax liens with the possibility of redeeming out an earlier tax lien holder.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bank of America, which bought Countrywide Financial for $4 billion in stock in early 2008, has come under pressure from the Massachusetts Attorney General, as a result of Countrywide's notorious lending practices.  Bank of America's move is part of an agreement to settle claims over certain high-risk loans made by Countrywide.  See link to Wall Street Journal article.

Bank of America's program is limited to Countrywide borrowers whose loan balance is at least 120% of the estimated home value, who are at least 60 days overdue, and who can show that financial hardship makes them unable to meet current payments. The bank estimated that 45,000 customers will qualify for principal reductions averaging more than $60,000.  In the end, only the riskiest loans will be eligible. They include sub-prime loans; "option adjustable-rate" mortgages entailing minimal payments now but big increases later; and certain loans that have a fixed rate for two years and then adjust annually.

Any thought that principal reduction is the path the lenders are heading in should consider the limited scope of the agreement between Bank of America and the Massachusetts Attorney General.  Nonetheless, the action by Bank of America is notable because it is the largest mortgage servicer, collecting loan payments on one of every five home loans in the U.S. At the end of last year, 14.76% of them were at least 30 days past due or in foreclosure, versus an industry average of 12.31%, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. 

Principal reduction is clearly the direction that the large majority of underwater borrowers clearly are hoping the major banks are leaning towards.  Given that lenders must incur substantial costs in foreclosing, only to take a wash when they sell the foreclose property as a Real Estate Owned property, it only seems practical to try and keep people in their homes by reducing the principal.  I have seen many properties where the bank ended up selling a foreclosed property for substantially less than they would have made had they just worked with the homeowner.  No one claims that reason is driving this ship. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the tax lien foreclosure world, appropriate service of process is absolutely crucial.  Consider what is at stake in a tax lien foreclosure case - the potential forfeiture of the right of the owner of a property to pay off their delinquent property taxes, which practically speaking means the likely loss of their property.  If you are going to foreclose on someone's property, for their failure to pay property taxes for five consecutive years, you better give them adequate notice of the pending case against them.  

A recent memorandum decision from Division 2 of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Leveraged Land, Montgomery, v. Hodges, 2 CA-CV 2009-0057, deals with the issue of what happens in a tax lien foreclosure case where the owner of record has only been served by publication in a newspaper.   Memorandum decisions, while instructive for lawyers to consider how the courts may rule in a future case, unfortunately cannot be cited by as legal authority.  

In Hodges, the tax lien investor filed a complaint to foreclose the owner's (Hodges) right to redeem the tax lien.  The tax lien investor apparently was unable to serve Hodges personally and served Hodges by publication.  A default judgment was eventually entered against Hodges and the tax lien investor obtained a Treasurer's Deed and then sold the property.  Hodges later filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing in part that the judgment was void because he had "good cause" entitling him to a new trial.  The trial court denied his motion and Hodges appealed. 

Hodges argued in his appeal that he was "ready, willing, and able to redeem the property" and that entilted him to a new trial.  Under Rule 59(j)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, when a judgment has been entered on service by publication, and the defendant has not appeared, a new trial may be granted upon application of the defendant for good cause shown by affidavit, made within one year after the judgment has been entered.  Relying on a 1942 case that was very similar in facts, the appeals court held that because Hodges was "ready, willing and able to redeem the property," the trial court erred in not granting the new trial.  The court remanded the case back to the trial court stating that the trial court should give Hodges a new trial. 

After sending the case back to the trial court, Hodges paid off the property taxes after working with some third-party investor who took a partial legal interest in the property.  The tax lien investor appealed the new judgment of the trial court arguing that Hodges did not have the ability at the time of the original case to pay off the tax lien, which Hodges admitted he did not.  The appeals court went on to rule that "the end result of a successful Rule 59(j) challenge is the restoration of a defendant's right to redeem."  The appeals court, applying equitable principles, stated that "purchasing tax liens entails risk and the onus is on the purchaser to protect its own interests."  The Court also stated that the tax lien investor must understand that any default judgment obtained through service by publication is open to attack for a year, and the fact that the tax lien investor decided to sell the property before that time had run was their own fault. 

Warning tax lien investors: if you are going to get into the tax lien investment world; beware, as there are pitfalls that come up that late night infomercials do not tell you that. 

Warning attorneys: do your due diligence upfront and get people served personally. 

Additional warning attorneys: it seems pretty clear that the court does not look too favorably on tax lien investing. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Arizona legislature, probably with some good ol' vested interest prodding, provides a nice little mechanism to insulate tax lien investors from some of their down-side risk.  Under A.R.S. Section 42-18206, any person who redeems a tax lien after they have been personally served with a complaint seeking to foreclose their right to redeem then becomes responsible for the costs and reasonable attorney's fees that the investor instituting the action incurred.  Sometimes it is very difficult to get the owner of record or any other interested party in a given parcel, subject to a tax lien,  personally served.  Indeed, sometimes it is not possible to effect personal service in the way we normally think of people getting served - a process server handing the lawsuit to the person - because they are evading service or cannot be located despite diligent efforts.  Consequently, a person sometimes must be served by publishing a copy of the summons in a newspaper for four weeks in the county that the person is believed to live in and the property is located. 

In Richie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, Division I of the Arizona Court of Appeals faced the legal question of whether an award of attorney's fees and costs under A.R.S. Section 42-18206 may be triggered by initiating service of process via publication or is available only after completion of the publication process under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeals court ruled that the entitlement to an award under the statute requires completion of service.  The court reasoned that because the redemption occurred before the conditions to perfect service by publication were met, service of process was not actually complete.  Merely initiating service, but not completing service was not sufficient for an award of fees.   

I find it hard to believe that the trial court ruled the other way on this one.  It seems pretty clear that you need to actually complete service before you are entitled to fees. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 42-18202, a tax lien investor who wants foreclose the right of a property owner to redeem a tax lien is required, among other things, to send a notice of intent to file a foreclosure action by certified mail to the owner of record.

In 2005, the Arizona legislature amended Section 42-18202 by adding subsection C, which states: "If the purchaser fails to send the notice required by this section, the purchaser is considered to have substantially failed to comply with this section. A court shall not enter any action to foreclose the right to redeem under this article until the purchaser sends the notice required by this section."

A recent case from the Arizona Court of Appeals - DuPont v. Reuter - addressed the issue of what it means to substantially fail to comply with Section 42-18202.  In DuPont, the tax lien holder sent the owner of record the required statutory notice of intent to foreclose, but failed to send the notice by certified mail.  The tax lien holder subsequently obtained a default judgment and a Treasurer's Deed.  The trial court later ordered that the Coconino County Treasurer cancel the issued Treasurer's Deed. 

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's orders and the judgment, holding that the requirement to serve the notice of intent to foreclose by certified mail was not jurisdictional.  Relying on Section 42-18101(B), the Court of Appeals reasoned that an insubstantial failure to comply with each and every element of the tax lien and foreclosure statutes does not preclude a tax lien holder's ability to foreclose.  In the end, the Court of Appeals held that sending a notice of intent to foreclose by regular mail instead of certified mail was an "insubstantial failure" and did not automatically void the judgment and the issued Treasurer's Deed.

In contrast to the recent Court of Appeals decision in Roberts v. Roberts, here, the Court of Appeals seems to have grasped that the stated objective of the tax lien statutes is to secure the payment of unpaid delinquent taxes by preserving and enhancing the marketability of tax liens and Treasurer's Deeds, which is essential to the maintenance of county government. 

The DuPont case frankly amazes me.  Here you have a property owner that was willing to pay what likely amounted to tens of thousands of dollars to an attorney to fight for a property that the same owner had effectively forgotten about.  The property owner in DuPont admittedly received notice that the tax lien owners were going to foreclose on the property.  However, instead of paying off her back taxes, the property owner was willing to fight out the issue of whether she should have received notice by certified mail instead of regular mail.  This woman had been delinquent on her property taxes for over thirteen years, and the delinquent taxes totaled some $240,000.  Coconino County certainly could have put that money to good use.  In the end, the property owner in the DuPont case, like property owners generally, have to take some level of responsibility in the care and ownership of property, which includes paying property taxes.  The legislature has clearly codified a system in which an insubstantial failure to strictly follow the tax lien foreclosure rules will not prevent a tax lien investor from obtaining a Treasurer's Deed to any given property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once an investor has owned a tax lien certificate of purchase for at least three years since it was first offered for sale by the given county, the investor may seek to foreclose the right of the property owner to redeem the tax lien. Arizona's statutes (A.R.S. Section 42-18201, et seq.) govern the foreclosure process.

Specifically, Arizona Revised Statute Section 42-18201 requires that at least thirty days before filing an action to foreclose the right to redeem, the tax lien holder must send a notice of intent to file a foreclosure to the property owner. Section 42-18201 specifies exactly how that is to be done.

The recent Arizona Court of Appeals case of Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (App. 2007), has added to the due diligence necessary to successfully foreclose the right of a property owner to redeem a tax lien. In Roberts, the Roberts purchased two tax liens for property located in Mohave County, Arizona. The Roberts later sued the owner of record, Phyllis V. Johnson, the Mohave County Treasurer, various fictitious parties, and the "unknown heirs of any of" them "if they be deceased" to foreclose their right to redeem the tax liens.

After attempting personal service on Johnson, the Roberts discovered that Johnson had died. A son of Johnson, was served on Johnson's behalf and subsequently entered into an arrangement with the Roberts whereby they would obtain a default judgment without any subsequent assessment of fees or costs against Johnson or the son. The Roberts later obtained a default judgment barring Johnson or any person claiming title "under" her from asserting any right, title, or interest in an tot he property subject to the tax lien.

A year later, Tim Roberts appeared, claimed to be the son of and heir of Johnson, and argued that as an heir, he had a right to redeem the tax liens. He then moved for a new trial and asked the trial court to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the default judgment was void because he had not been personally served or served by publication.

The issue presented to the Court of Appeals was whether Johnson's heir had a right to redeem a tax lien. The Court of Appeals ruled that because Tim Roberts was Johnson's rightful heir, he a right to redeem. The Court also ruled that only those parties who are joined in a foreclosure action may have their rights to redeem foreclosed. Thus, ruled the Court, the Roberts need to join Tim Roberts as a defendant in their foreclosure action and obtain a judgment against him to foreclose his right to redeem.

The Court also set the standard for what level of due diligence and due process will be required in a tax lien foreclosure action in Arizona. Depending on the circumstances, the Court ruled that a tax lien holder may need to examine public records, or may need to ask relatives, friends, or the neighbors of the deceased property owner about the existence of heirs. In the end, the Court stated that whether service by publication is constitutionally sufficient will turn on the facts of the particular case, and it would not attempt to set forth a rule that will fit each circumstance.

This case clearly sets a due diligence and due process standard, but leaves it up to the circumstances of each case to dictate what efforts will justify service by publication. Indeed, the Court rejected the Roberts' contention that they did serve Tim Roberts as an "unknown heir." The Court stated that the record contained no evidence of what steps, if any, the Roberts took to identify and locate Johnson's heirs before attempting service by publication.

The message is clear - if the property owner has died, some efforts must be made to locate the heirs of the deceased property owner before service by publication will be deemed appropriate under the circumstances. This decision clearly will place a heightened burden on tax lien investors and will undoubtedly increase the cost of successfully foreclosing the right to redeem. It will be interesting to see if future court decisions spell out in greater detail what level of due diligence and due process will be required. Until then, investors beware - do your due diligence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Due diligence - do it and do it well. For unsuspecting tax lien investors who have not done their research, they might be surprised to learn that while property tax liens have very high priority, in certain circumstances, a bankruptcy can wreak havoc on their investment.

It should be noted that bankruptcy courts often respect property tax liens and give them high priority in the administration of a bankruptcy estate. However, under certain rare circumstances - Chapter 7 - the bankruptcy trustee may subordinate the tax lien to the administration of the estate, effectively extinguishing the tax lien. In effect, a tax lien investor could end up an unsecured creditor - a far cry from the 16% return or title to the property that investors believed they would receive.

This is a pretty rare situation, but one tax lien investors should be aware of. In all instances, as part of a tax lien investors' due diligence, they need to determine if the subject property is subject to an automatic stay by a bankruptcy court. By consulting a title company, the county recorder, and the bankruptcy court, an investor can easily avoid such a scenario.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A common question in the tax lien investing arena is what happens to a tax lien if a property is foreclosed on?

In a tax lien state like Arizona, counties do not sell property; rather they sell a tax lien in the form of a certificate of purchase for unpaid property taxes. This tax lien is an encumbrance or enforcement right held by the county. While the lien does not grant full ownership rights to the property, it does provide the investor with two commanding rights: 1) The right to receive interest penalty charges (up to 16%) if the lien is paid off by the delinquent property owner, and 2) The right to foreclose the tax lien and take title to the property if the lien is not paid.

What makes tax lien investing so potentially powerful is that property tax lien is a high priority lien, which is superior to judgment liens, mortgage liens, trust deeds, and other private liens. However, property tax liens do share priority with other liens. For example, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee may be permitted to pay the expenses of administering the bankrupt estate before paying the tax lien. Another example is when a bank fails due to insolvency. In that case, any loans owed to the bank are administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). This is a rare instance, but one any investor must be aware of.

The long and the short of tax liens in the foreclosure process is that the tax lien will be paid even if the property goes to a trustee's sale because of its superior priority.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you own a home and dutifully pay your mortgage each month, chances are, you do not worry much about whether your property taxes are being paid. Hopefully, if your mortgage servicer is doing its job correctly, you have an impound or escrow account set up from which your servicer pays your property taxes and insurance. However, some property owners do not have impound accounts; therefore, they are responsible for the payment of their property taxes.

So what happens when a property owner stops paying their property taxes? In Arizona, like many states, once a property owner is delinquent in the payment of their property taxes, county treasurers sell tax liens to investors in the form of certificates of purchase.

Each year, county treasurers hold tax lien sales. In Arizona, the tax lien sale is held each February. There, investors bid on an interest rate that they are willing to accept for the tax lien. In Arizona, the highest rate that an investor can receive is 16.00% for a tax lien. Often, if the tax lien has great interest, investors bid down the rate, which may reach as low as 5-6%. The investor is not bidding on the property, but the right to own a tax lien against that property. The tax lien process ensures that counties continue to receive property tax payments to support the services they provide, and it also provides investors a solid rate of return or the opportunity to foreclose on a property in time.

In the absence of any future payments by the property owner, a tax lien affords the investor the opportunity to make property tax payments in the place of the property owner. The tax lien holder also continues to receive the same interest rate originally bid until such time as the tax lien is redeemed by the property owner or a foreclosure action is instituted.

To begin a judicial tax lien foreclosure, an investor must hold a tax lien certificate of purchase for a minimum of three years from the date of the original offering of the tax lien. By the time an investor begins a judicial foreclosure in Arizona, for example, five years of back taxes will have accrued.

The judicial foreclosure process is controlled by state statutes and is very specific in its provisions. Given that a property owner may be stripped of his ownership rights to a property, notice is always an important part of the tax lien foreclosure process. In order to ensure that proper notice is given, purchasing a litigation guarantee from a title company is important to get the most up to date information on the property owners.

Arizona requires that a statutory notice letter be sent to the owner of record according to the records on file with the county recorder. Once notice is provided and no redemption has occurred, the investor can file an action in superior court seeking to foreclose the right of the property owner to redeem the tax lien. A property owner can redeem any tax lien up to moment before a judgment is signed. The typical tax lien foreclosure can take close to a year to complete.

Once a successful tax lien foreclosure is complete and a court enters judgment foreclosing the right of the owner to redeem the tax lien, the county treasurer will issue a treasurer's deed, which is recorded and gives the investor title to the property.

It is interesting to note land ownership in this country is conditional. While ownership of property is a concept firmly enshrined by our founding fathers, governments at all levels still have tremendous power to take that property from owners. While eminent domain is the most commonly known power given to governments to take property, the tax lien process ensures that if you choose not to pay your property taxes, you invariably will lose your property to someone willing to step in and pay your back taxes for you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link