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

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

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

It seems that the small glimmer of hope that everyone is hoping for in the housing market is not likely to come anytime soon.  Mathew Padilla has posted an excellent blog article discussing that the discussion of another wave of foreclosure implies that the current wave has already receded.  Sam Khater, a senior economist with First American CoreLogic has stated: “To say there is a second wave implies the (current) wave has receded . . . I don’t see that the wave has receded.”

Call it what you will, the next foreclosure wave to hit will largely involve Pay Option ARMs.  Pay Option ARMs are adjustable rate mortgages on which the interest rate adjusts monthly and the payment adjusts annually, with borrowers offered options on how large a payment they will make. The options include interest-only, and a "minimum" payment that is usually less than the interest-only payment. The minimum payment option results in a growing loan balance, termed "negative amortization."  As Long and Foster's Ron Sitrin recently commented: because these loans "had negative amortization for so long, they can't refinance out of them and they cannot sell them because the loans are worth more than the properties themselves."

For the most part the expensive gated communities have avoided the impact of the current foreclosure wave, but its job loss consequences are coming home to roost in the upper income brackets.  This graph puts the Pay Option ARM problem in stark terms: 

As a recent post on Dr. Housing Bubble stated: "The Pay Option ARM is one of the most poorly construed mortgage product ever to face this planet. It was a pathetic attempt to allow a larger majority of Americans to have a piece of the great American credit ponzi scheme."  How's that for upbeat? 

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

RealtyTrac just released its 2008 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which reported that there were a total of 3,157,806 foreclosure filings (default notices, auction sale notices, and bank repossessions) on 2,330,483 properties during 2008.  That was an 81 percent increase over 2007 and a 225 percent increase over 2006.  To get a feel for the breadth and scope of just how serious the foreclosure Juggernaut is, take a look at this map to see just how hard hit certain parts of the country were in 2008.

Arizona reported the third highest foreclosure rate of all states in 2008.  4.49 percent of all housing units in Arizona received at least one foreclosure filing during the year.  Indeed, 116,911 properties in Arizona received a foreclosure filing, which also put Arizona third for total foreclosure filings.  Amazingly, foreclosure activity in Arizona during 2008 increased 203 percent from 2007 and 665 percent from 2006.  That last percentage far surpasses the two top foreclosure activity states - California (412 percent increase since 2006) and Florida (412 percent increase since 2006).  

Not surprisingly, Pinal and Maricopa County were particularly hard hit.  The Phoenix metropolitan area reported 97,684 foreclosure filings in 2008, an increase of 220.77 percent from 2007.  That put the Phoenix metropolitan area fifth on the top 100 metropolitan areas, which is fairly consistent with its metropolitan population ranking.  The Tucson metropolitan area reported 9,043 foreclosure filings in 2008, an increase of 113.33 percent.  The Tucson metropolitan area ranked 37th on the top 100 metropolitan areas, which is again fairly close to the Tucson metropolitan population ranking. 

The burn-off of the Arizona housing bubble seems to be gaining momentum faster than the meteoric rise in real estate prices.  For example, take a look at the graph of median home prices in Phoenix between 1989 and 2009.  Look at the incredible bell curve between about 2005 and 2008.  The scary thing that some commentators are noting, is that while the bell curve has basically been erased and median prices are near 2004 levels, the current inventory of homes is far greater than 2004 levels, not to mention, it is much more difficult to qualify now.  Looks like we may not hit a bottom for a while yet.  The bubbly hangover may be more painful than the euphoria of the upswing, eh? 

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

So a borrower defaults under a promissory note and the deed of trust.  Normally, the lender in that circumstance will exercise the power of sale clause in the deed of trust and begin the foreclosure process by noticing a trustee's sale.  However, the lender may also choose to call the note due and accelerate the entire amount and proceed with a judicial foreclosure.  Most lenders choose to go the trustee's sale route because it is faster and cheaper than a judicial foreclosure. 

What I recently discovered, is that many attorneys do not know about a borrower's statutory right of reinstatement and how that right applies in the context of both a trustee's sale and a judicial foreclosure.  Under Arizona Revised Statute Section 33-813(A), the trustor under a deed of trust (borrower) may reinstate (or cure the default under the promissory note) by paying the lender "the entire amount then due . . ., other than the portion of the principal as would not then be due had no default occurred . . ."  In other words, the borrower only needs to come up with the amount he or she is in default, not the entire amount due under the promissory note.  Nonetheless, many lenders' attorneys seem to believe that if the lender calls the promissory note due and exercises its right to accelerate the promissory note, the borrower must immediately pay the entire amount owed under the promissory note in order to cure the default, not just the defaulted amount. 

However, in Chapparral Development v. RMED Intern, 170 Ariz. 309, 823 P.2d 1317 (App. 1991), the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that under A.R.S. Section 33-813(A), a trustor has an absolute right to reinstatement whether a lender chooses to foreclose by means of trustee's sale or a judicial foreclosure.  The difference being, if a lender chooses to pursue judicial foreclosure, a borrower's statutory right of reinstatement is cut off once the lender files the judicial foreclosure action and the borrower will have to pay the entire amount owed on the promissory note.  On the other hand, in the context of a trustee's sale, the borrower can reinstate up until 5:00 p.m. the day before the date of the trustee's sale.  But once the trustee's sale has been held, that right of reinstatement is extinguished.

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