Tucson Land Use Law Blog : Tucson Land Use Lawyer & Attorney : Fleishman Law Firm : Tax Liens, Foreclosures, Zoning

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard announced that on December 17, 2010, his Office filed a lawsuit against Bank of America and its affiliated companies  alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and violations of the consent judgment entered in March 2009 between Arizona and the Countrywide companies owned by Bank of America.

The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, was triggered by hundreds of consumer complaints and follows a year-long investigation into Bank of America’s residential mortgage servicing practices, particularly its loan modification and foreclosure practices.

Goddard stated that Bank of America, the nation’s largest residential mortgage loan servicer, should be leading the way out of the country’s foreclosure crisis. Instead, he said, “Bank of America has been the slowest of all the servicers to ramp up loss mitigation efforts in response to the housing crisis. It has shown callous disregard for the devastating effects its servicing practices have had on individual borrowers and on the economy as a whole.”

The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the consent judgment and to order them to pay restitution to eligible consumers and civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs of investigation to the State. It further asks the court to order the defendants to pay up to $25,000 for each violation of the consent judgment and up to $10,000 for each violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Goddard noted that Arizona has been particularly hard hit by the foreclosure crisis, as evidenced by recent reports ranking the state second behind Nevada in foreclosures. Nevada plans to file a similar lawsuit against Bank of America today.

The consent judgment was entered into on March 13, 2009 to resolve the Attorney General’s allegations that Countrywide had engaged in widespread consumer fraud in originating and marketing mortgage loans. In the judgment, Countrywide agreed to develop and implement a loan modification program for certain former Countrywide borrowers in Arizona. Bank of America acquired Countrywide on July 1, 2008 and has assumed responsibility for Countrywide’s compliance with the consent judgment.

The complaint filed today alleges that, since the consent judgment was entered, Bank of America has repeatedly violated the judgment’s provisions related to loan modifications. Instead of providing the relief to which eligible homeowners were entitled, Bank of America has failed to make timely decisions on modification requests and proceeded with foreclosures while modification requests were pending in violation of the agreement.

The complaint also alleges that Bank of America has violated the Consumer Fraud Act by misleading Arizona consumers about its loss mitigation process and programs, including matters such as:
• Whether homeowners must be delinquent on their mortgage payments to be considered for a loan modification.
• How much time it would take to receive a decision from Bank of America on a modification request or a short sale request.
• Whether foreclosure would proceed while a modification or short sale request was pending, or while a homeowner was making trial payments.
• Whether the homeowner had been approved for a loan modification.
• Failure to provide valid reasons why the homeowner was declined for a modification.
• Whether the homeowner would be approved for a permanent modification if the consumer successfully made all trial modification payments.

As a result of Bank of America’s deceptive practices, many homeowners who were already contending with other financial hardships have been led to unnecessarily deplete their dwindling savings in futile attempts to obtain the promised relief and save their homes. Many homeowners who tried to obtain a modification from Bank of America ended up owing more principal on their loans or having less equity (becoming more “underwater”) in their homes. Others gave up their chances to pursue other financial options, such as short sales, while trying to modify their loans with Bank of America. These consumers endured months of frustrating delays, not knowing whether or when they would lose their homes. They called Bank of America and resubmitted their paperwork over and over again in futile efforts to get the help they were promised.

“I am filing this lawsuit today because, after years of delay and broken promises, Arizonans should not have to wait any longer to seek redress,” Goddard stated. “Our homeowners and communities need and deserve relief. Bank of America must be held accountable for its deceptive conduct and failed commitments.”

For anyone in the front lines of the foreclosure debacle, this should come as little surprise.  The Attorney's General's lawsuit joins many across the country seeking class-action status, alleging that Bank of America regularly falsely informs borrowers that it did not receive requested information and demands that documents be re-sent.  Bank of America is not exactly alone here.  The entire loan modification "extend and pretend" system is flawed and implicitly intended to allow servicers of loans the opportunity to make more money while stringing people along with the false hope that they will receive a permanant loan modification.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

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

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

University of Arizona College of Law Professor Brent T. White has stirred quite a bit of controversy over his recent article in the Arizona Legal Studies entitled "Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis."  

His basic thesis is that despite the increasing number of homeowners walking away from their underwater mortgages, most homeowners continue to try and hold on to their homes even when it does not make economic sense to do so.  He suggests that homeowners choose to try and hold on to their homes to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure and because of the  "exaggerated anxiety" over the perceived consequences of a foreclosure created by "social control agents."  In short, he believes that underwater homeowners (in Arizona and California) are not knowingly making bad choices, they just can not "cognitively grasp" that they would be better off financially by simply walking away.  At the end of the day, argues White, many more underwater homeowners should be walking away from their mortgage obligations. 

As a justification for his thesis, White suggests that the "norms governing homeowner behavior stand in sharp contrast to norms governing lenders, who seek to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility. This norm asymmetry leads to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse."  

White argues that there are costs associated with walking away, but they are not outweighed by the financial benefits of a "strategic default."  While White's thesis is controversial, as it applies to Arizona borrowers, he is correct.  Arizona's anti-deficiency laws are incredibly broad and protect the large majority of borrowers who are now trying to keep pace with a subdivision home that is severely underwater.  Arizona's anti-deficiency statute (A.R.S. Section 33-814(G)) prevents lenders from pursuing a deficiency (the difference between the amount owed by the borrower and the price bid at a trustee's sale) against the borrower.  While a borrower's credit rating will undoubtedly take a severe beating from a foreclosure and the borrower may have to wait several years to obtain a federally guaranteed loan, for many underwater borrowers, the calculus leads to the undeniable conclusion that walking away makes the most financial sense. 

As for the moral aspect of walking away, White reasons that the overriding message to borrowers is that they have a moral responsibility to pay off their obligation.  White counters this message by pointing out that lenders are operating amorally according to market norms and could have acted to protect themselves by following prudent underwriting practices.  White's final point is that  "it is time to take morals out of the picture and search for an equitable solution to the negative equity problem."  While White is correct in many respects, had lenders and borrowers employed a stronger sense of morals when it came to underwriting and borrowing, we might not have experienced such a severe market bubble and attendant bust. 

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

What do the traditional Japanese Ninja and the the American Ninja have in common? Both destablize and cause social chaos. While traditional Ninjas allegedly intended to destabilize and cause social chaos in enemy territory or against opposing rules, the American Ninja never intended to do anything but make money.

The American Ninja is actually an acronym, which stands for (N)o (I)ncome, (N)o (J)ob, no (A)ssets. Apparently, HCL Finance, who dubs itself "Home of the No Doc Loan," coined the term during the go-go days of the real estate bubble. Indeed, this "innovative product," like so many others, was a driving force in the boom.

So, combine Salomon Brothers' Lewis Ranieri's idea of buying mortgages, bundling them, and issuing bonds with the bundles as collateral and the Ninja loan, and we have the perfect recipe for disaster. The US housing market is far from bottom and the effects of ridiculous lending practices will continue to be felt for some time to come.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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