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

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

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

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