Posts Tagged ‘Homes’

‘20 Months Too Late’: Let’s Start Rethinking Mortgage Modifications in Chapter 13

I’ve been thinking about yesterday’s blog entry.  When I first read the First Circuit decision, I wondered why the case was brought.  Here was a homeowner arguing that a mere technical violation of TILA would enable him to rescind a mortgage that he signed 20 months prior.   Based on the facts cited by the Court, it seemed a bit disingenuous.  But then, as I was thinking about it more, it occurred to me that what did not sit well with me was not what I knew from the court decision.  It was what I didn’t know.  I knew nothing about the homeowner.

I don’t know if the homeowner knew exactly what he was doing when he was at the closing.  I don’t know if the homeowner was honest when he was applying for the loan, but knew that he could not afford the mortgage unless he was able to refinance.  I don’t know if he was banking on rates going down, his property value going up, or both.

I don’t know if the mortgage broker lied, if the notary was drunk, or the closing agent fled to Columbia after the closing.  I don’t know if the homeowner was warned every step of the way, but heard and saw only what they wanted to.

I don’t know if the homeowner simply misgauged what the future might hold.  I don’t know if he was motivated by greed.  I don’t know if he was motivated by someone else’s greed, like family member’s, fueled further by his reluctance or his refusal to urge restraint.

I don’t know if his inability to afford the payments is based on what they could have controlled, but for whatever reason, did not.  I don’t know if he had the ability, the choice or the wherewithal to do everything he could to avoid heading into the financial minefield he now finds himself in.

I don’t know if it was a father trying to refinance their home because of a child – a new child to be born, an older child to be schooled or a sick child to be healed. I don’t know what was going through his mind.  I don’t know what was going through his heart.

I also don’t know if the homeowner himself or his spouse was ill.  Assuming they were, I don’t know if he was ill because of something he couldn’t control, or if his quart-of-gin-and-two-pack-a-day lifestyle was finally catching up with him.

I don’t know if the homeowner was employed, was under employed or was unemployed.  I don’t know if the homeowner one day went to work only to find the office doors locked or if he came home to find his spouse gone.

I don’t know if the homeowner refinanced to pay for a new roof, new wiring or a new septic system.  I don’t know if it was for a man-cave for him or an addition for his ailing mother.

Nor do I know if the homeowner was a scoundrel.  I don’t know if he overestimated his income to such a degree that it reflected a hope for a better, brighter and richer future than any rational person would think possible.  I don’t know if this is just one more thing he had already assumed he was going to get away with.

Regardless of the one or the combination of any of the above things that I do not know, I do know that the homeowner cannot go to bankruptcy court to modify the loan secured by the mortgage on their principal residence.  If you simple replace the words “I don’t know” with “What if you knew that…?” in each of the above situations or with a combination of any, and was able to consider what you did know, it would not change anything because the homeowner still could not modify the loan secured by the mortgage on their principal residence in bankruptcy.  But more simply stated: for the homeowner before the First Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to change the terms of a promise he made 20 months prior, I don’t know the reasons why.

Section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code of the United States won’t allow any homeowner in chapter 13 to seek modification of a loan secured by their principal residence regardless of the reason.  Congress has determined that the reason for the requested modification is irrelevant.  They have determined that no one, no judge, and indeed, not even me or my readers need ask why the modification is needed in chapter 13.  From the perspective of Congress (and frankly that of the Mortgage Bankers Association and their ilk), “why” is irrelevant.  (Actually, I’m not entirely correct on that point.  Lenders can choose to voluntarily modify the mortgages on a debtor’s principal residence.  They alone can consider the reasons “why.”)

Our country is embroiled in an economic crisis of historic proportions.  It’s bad out there, and for many may get worse.  If I’m eventually (i.e., within several months) proven wrong then you can all paint me crazy and I’ll find myself my own “Plan B.”  Until then, let’s all help each other find answers to the questions that start with “What if you did know…?”  And let’s start a meaningful discussion that may result with an amended Section 1322(b)(2) that will let homeowners prove in our forum of last resort (the Bankruptcy Court) the desperate financial situations they find themselves in, and will let judges consider and weigh the reasons why they should get a second chance to keep their family home.  If for no other reason because it defies logic that the same standards be applied to someone who has been dealt a bad hand versus someone who is gaming the system.

  • Share/Bookmark

20 Months Too Late

When a homeowner refinances their mortgage, the lender must give certain notices under the federal Truth in Lending Act, also referred to as TILA.  For a number of good reasons, homeowners must be given a notice that informs them of their rights to rescind their mortgage.  But what happens if the notice does not strictly comply with what TILA’s requirements?  Does any flaw in the notice permit a homeowner to rescind a mortgage?  On June 11, the First Circuit Court of Appeals had an opportunity to answer that question.

The case involved a borrower who had been given a copy of a rescission notice at closing.  The notice stated:

You are entering into a transaction that will result in a mortgage/lien/security interest on our home.  You have a legal right under federal law to cancel this transaction, without cost, within THREE BUSINESS DAYS from whichever of the following events occurs LAST:

(1)  The date of the transaction, which is ______; or

(2)  The date you receive your Truth in Lending disclosures; or

(3)  The date you received this notice of your right to cancel.

The homeowner also received information on how to cancel the transaction (i.e., how and when notices must be sent).

Under the Federal Reserve Board’s regulations, specifically, Regulation Z, when a homeowner rescinds the mortgage, the homeowner is “not …liable for any amount, including any finance charge” and the lender “shall return any money or property that has been given to anyone in connection with the transaction.”  Now if the notices the homeowner receives do not comply with TILA, or if the homeowner never received any notices, the homeowner has up to three years to rescind the mortgage, rather than just the three days.  Three years versus three days:  that can be particularly advantageous to a homeowner seeking to refinance when interest rates are lower, or if a loan that seemed like a good idea at the time has now revealed that it’s really not a good idea at all.

This homeowner argued that he was able to rescind the loan 20 months after closing because the “date of transaction” line in the notice was left blank.  However, the date of the transaction was stamped on the upper right hand corner of the notice (although not precisely in the blank line).  But that was not the only issue that worked against this homeowner.

The homeowner attended the closing and admitted receiving the notices at the closing.  The only possible issue was that the closing occurred on a Saturday, and it might be difficult to determine exactly when the three days expired (i.e., the following Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday).  But the argument here was not over a few days, it was over a few months.  This homeowner was effectively arguing a mere technical violation of the notice that the Court found would impose a penalty on the lender while at the same time allow a windfall on the homeowner. For those reasons, the Court found that there was no way the blanks misled the homeowner as to when his rescission rights expired, and his request to rescind was untimely.

What options does this homeowner have?  It’s tough to say.  The decision does not discuss the homeowner’s income and expenses or whether there is a possibility that the homeowner can benefit from a bankruptcy filing.  But remember, if the home is the principal residence, modifying the loan in a bankruptcy will not be possible.

Read the Court decision here.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Handwriting on the Wall

Over the last two years or so, I’ve seen a particularly troubling trend with homeowners seeking bankruptcy protection.  It is making bankruptcies unnecessarily complicated and expensive.  It also puts them at a greater risk of failing – at least once (which at the very least, makes it more expensive).  It’s the trend for them to wait until the very last minute to actually consider bankruptcy as an option.  This is a bad, bad idea.

Years ago, I would hear from callers who had oppressive credit card debt, medical bills and had experienced some sort of major life event: job loss, medical crisis, death in the family, or divorce.  That debt was getting out of control, but their real estate was usually current….or perhaps was approaching default but not in foreclosure.  They could see the handwriting on the wall; they could see the storm clouds on the horizon.  They needed to prepare for what they thought was inevitable. Nowadays, it’s usually quite different.

Now I typically hear from callers who are facing foreclosure within 2-3 weeks, and if they (and I) are lucky, they have more than a month before the scheduled auction.  The reasons are essentially the same: many are losing jobs, wages and overtime is getting frozen or eliminated, mortgage payments and other debts have creeped up.  There is also the occasional debtor with a health care issue or some other extraordinary set of circumstances. The bankruptcy filing can delay the sale, and give the debtor an opportunity to reorganize finances or even secure a loan modification.  But think about this – if you Google “GM Bankruptcy” you will see that pundits were talking about GM’s bankruptcy last fall (look under archives).  I am willing to bet GM was at least thinking about it was well.  I’m also willing to venture that GM was preparing for the possibility of having to file bankruptcy.  For homeowners, there’s no good excuse to be waiting until the auction has been scheduled and the notice has been published to be at least considering and planning a bankruptcy filing.  Think of it as Plan B.

Unfortunately, to homeowners who are attempting to secure a modification of their loan, I have some bad news.  Lenders are not all that organized themselves: it’s not altogether uncommon for the foreclosure department who is handling the auction not to be speaking to the loss mitigation department who is handling the modification and vice-versa.  Perhaps this is what happens when we let companies get too big to fail.  I realize that this lack of communication protocol may seem strange if not completely asinine, but this has been my experience, and my colleagues who represent lenders have shared their frustrations with me on this issue as well.  Thus, your request for modification will not necessarily stall a foreclosure.

Of course, filing a properly prepared chapter 13 bankruptcy petition takes quite a bit of work.  And documents.  And information.  And good counsel.  Tax returns need to be filed.  Pay stubs or payment advices need to be gathered.  Property needs to be valued.  The Bankruptcy Code requires that documents be filed within a certain period of time after the case is filed. A typical bankruptcy petition – along with a chapter 13 plan – can exceed well over 45 pages.  And chapter 13 plans require some thought, strategy and expertise.

If a debtor seeks bankruptcy protection but does not have this information properly prepared when the case needs to be filed, an Order to Update will enter.  The Bankruptcy Court will order that the debtor file all documents by a date certain: anywhere from 3-14 days.  Need an extension?  You might get one.  You also might not.

I am increasingly finding that debtors simply do not have the information needed within the 3-14 day period.  Sometimes I can get an extension.  Sometimes I cannot.  Sometimes the pro se debtor cannot get one and that is the first time they pick up the phone and speak to a bankruptcy attorney.  The delay, the motions, and frankly, the hunt for this information under the pressure of a strict time deadline only adds to the expense and increases the risk for error.  It also does nothing to quell the anxiety of what is undeniably a stressful situation.  Sadly, this is all fueled by debtors who are considering bankruptcy only within weeks, days or in worse case scenarios hours before a foreclosure auction is scheduled to move forward.  And in many cases, their delays prove costly, and may also lead to their case imploding.

If you are a homeowner who is serious about saving their home and attempting to keep what you have worked hard for, then you must consider bankruptcy as an option at the earliest opportunity.  This way, you can start gathering information and be ready to go if the mortgage modification doesn’t come through.

Of course, there are others out there who I know are telling folks not to think about bankruptcy.  There are others who mislead with claims that bankruptcy protection is harder to get now.  If you rule it out the bankruptcy option without getting the facts, speaking with a bankruptcy attorney, and understanding process and what will be expected of you in that process, I promise you this: you will regret it.

Anyone that tells you differently is selling you something.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Cramdown Bill is Dead

From MSNBC:

A dozen Democrats joined Republicans in the 45-51 vote to scuttle the bill, which Obama had said was important to saving the economy and promised to push through Congress. But facing stiff opposition from banks, Obama did little to pressure lawmakers who worried it would encourage bankruptcy filings and spike interest rates.

More here.

I remind everyone that next year, 2010, is an election year.  If you want to know who to blame, here’s the roll call vote.

  • Share/Bookmark

Mortgage Modification/Cramdown Bill Update

From Today’s Washington Post:

Days before an expected vote, Senate leaders yesterday touted their version of a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages, but have yet to secure the support of the financial services industry and face fierce opposition that could derail the proposal again.

The characterization of the opposition being “fierce” is unfortunate, but it appears to be accurate:

“I hope we can muster the courage and find the votes, although I know it will be hard,” (Senate Majority Whip) Durbin (D-Ill) said on the Senate floor yesterday. Durbin has been pushing the measure for more than two years. “It’s hard to imagine that today the mortgage bankers would have clout in this chamber, but they do.”

More here.

For more on the President’s Foreclosure Prevention Plan, click here.

  • Share/Bookmark

Does the Cramdown Bill Have a Chance of Passing?

A report from Housing Wire suggests that the answer may be ‘no’.

“[Senator Richard] Durbin [D-Ill]  had a hell of a time coming up with a bill that’d pass the Senate,” said Burt Ely, a banking expert and principal of Ely & Co. “He’s watered it down so much that his proposal now limits the accessibility or intention of the bill. Even if he got it passed, the gulf is so big it wouldn’t even get out of [the House] conference committee to be enacted into law.”

Not surprisingly, consumer advocates are seeing red.

“With Durbin, Dodd and Reid doing the bidding for the banks, this current state of the cramdown bill will have virtually no impact for at-risk borrowers,” says Bruce Marks, CEO of Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, a mortgage broker and consumer activist. “The Senate Democrats have made no measurable actions this year to help the housing crisis.”

More here.

  • Share/Bookmark

HR 1106 is About Fairness (or “What About Bob?”)

Word out of Washington is that HR 1106 will be voted on next week.  Today’s debates and votes were procedural in nature.

Apparently, this gives more time for the highly-paid bank lobbyists to organize their “packs” and convince House Members that allowing Chapter 13 debtors to cram down the mortgage on their principal residences will bring their the world ever closer to financial ruin.  From The Huffington Post:

“We continue to be opposed to the bill and that hasn’t changed, but we do live in the real world, and we do understand that this is very likely to happen, and we owe it to our members to recognize that reality and to limit the damage as much as possible,” said Francis Creighton, a lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, which spent $4.2 million on lobbying last year. “We’re encouraged by the fact that the bill is moving to limit the damage of cram-down rather than make it worse.”

At the very least, you can see that my quip about them being “highly paid” was not altogether gratuitous.   But what is this about the “damage” of cram-down?  Give me a break.

Perhaps Mr. Creighton and his fellow highly paid lobbyists are not aware that cram-down is already happening in the bankruptcy system and so far, vast bread-lines have not formed because of it.  Indeed, if the facts justify it, I can propose a cram-down for anyone with the following: investment property; an owner occupied two or three family home; a family home that also has commercial space (such as a store front with living space above it – very popular in some towns on the Cape); a car (subject to certain limitations imposed by BAPCPA – which are not particularly relevant for this discussion); and a boat.  Actually, we can cram down any boat big or small provided the facts justify it.  I just cannot do it on people with single family residences.  Congress is trying to change that.

So why is the lending industry spending hoards and hoards of cash to stop it? Again, from The Huffington Post:

[T]he mortgage industry contends the measure will impose steep and unpredictable costs on its companies, which will be forced to pass them along to borrowers in the form of higher fees and interest rates. The industry spent millions last year on a successful lobbying effort to kill the bill….

Higher fees and interest rates? Perhaps they if spent less on lobbying, they would not need to charge higher fees and interest rates.  But putting my comedic skills aside for a moment….consider this illustration:

Bob and his wife live in West Roxbury.* He has worked as a State Employee for 15 years, and his wife took a job as a manager of a Circuit City after they had their third child, who is now 5.  His wife will soon be unemployed and will be trying to get back to work in retail which is (to put it mildly) struggling.  Bob is not sure he’s going to survive the the budget cuts his department is facing.  In 2004, they refinanced their home to pay bills and to get what they thought was a lower rate for a few years.  And it was…but for only two years, but they assumed (and in hindsight now see that they assumed incorrectly) that they could refinance their way out of it.  The house is now worth $250,000.  The mortgage totals $350,000.

If Bob lives in a single family home on a nice lot, he cannot currently cram down the mortgage in chapter 13.

If Bob lives in a two-family home, where he and his family reside in the larger of the two units and the second is rented out to tenants (who may, or may not be current on their rent), currently he can cram it down.

So this claim that “if bankruptcy judges can modify loans, the world and all you know and love will end as we know it” is really just fear-mongering.  Why do we know this?  Because cram downs are already allowed.  Just not for Bob and his family if he is living in a single family home.  The only question left: why the fear-mongering?

HR 1106 is not about cram downs – it’s about fairness in the bankruptcy system.  Please make sure your leaders know this.

*Fictional characters in a nonfictional town.  Any resemblence with actual people in West Roxbury (or anywhere else) is entirely coincidental…with that said though, if this is you, we should talk more about your options.

  • Share/Bookmark

The President’s “Plan”

I am no economist, but there’s something about the President’s mortgage foreclosure rescue plan that just has not been sitting well with me.  I have not been able to put my finger on it and do the research to put together a thoughtful article.  Fortunately, I can stay focused on my clients and share with you this article from BusinessWeek by Peter Coy and Theo Francis who point out that the plan doesn’t address the danger of negative equity, and that homeowners with negative equity “might just walk away.”

Even for those who want to keep their homes at the moment, reducing monthly payments without addressing negative equity may just postpone the inevitable. “The reality is, people lose jobs, especially in a recession. People get transferred, people have to move at some point,” says Sean O’Toole, founder and CEO of ForeclosureRadar.com, which tracks California foreclosures. “By lowering payments and not principal balance, you’re guaranteeing the extension of this crisis for years to come.”

More here.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Easy Life of a Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney

Every now and then, I get a call from someone who already has a bankruptcy case pending. Sometimes, they do not like how things are going with their attorney. Other times, they don’t have one at all and find that they are in over their head. And sometimes, by the time they are calling me, they find themselves in what can best be described as a world of hurt. Today, I received such a call.

The debtor’s chapter 13 case was filed almost two months ago. There is still no plan filed. No post-petition mortgage payments have been made. The debtor just got served with a summons and complaint because not all creditors were properly listed on the schedules (and I’m not sure the matrix was done right). The IRS has filed a notice that prepetition tax returns have not been filed. There are motions for relief from stay from secured creditors, and from the tone of them, they seem frustrated. No plan payments have been made, and the creditors meeting is soon. I am also assuming that no tax returns or payments advices have been sent over the chapter 13 trustee. In addition, by looking over the schedules, it appears that the debt is too high for chapter 13 eligibility. After I got all that from reviewing PACER, I decided to ask an easy question first:

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Equal and Monthly Payments: The Voyage of the Balloon

May a debtor propose a chapter 13 plan that provides for the payment of mortgage arrears with regular monthly payments followed by a balloon payment at the end of the plan?

So far, the answer is still no (although the issue is still working its way through the courts).

In the recent case of In re Carman out of the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court in Worcester, the court found that a debtor could not propose a plan that paid the mortgagee interest only payments throughout the plan period, followed by a final balloon payment. “Such a modification is impermissible in that ‘once periodic payments to that creditor commence, a subsequent balloon payment would be unequal to those that preceded it.’”

Until we get word from the appeals courts, this issue will remain a potential road block for debtors who hope to fund their plan with a sale or refinancing (or other source of funds that they do not have access to now). When I say “road block”, I mean “road block to getting a chapter 13 plan confirmed.” And until this issue is resolved by the appeals courts, it should also be read to mean “a potential road block to keeping your house.”

In re Carman, 07-44271, US Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts at Worcester, July 25, 2008

You may have missed:
Did Congress Pop the Balloon?

  • Share/Bookmark