Posts Tagged ‘Mortgages and Foreclosures’

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 Sunday News

A fellow bankruptcy attorney shared this article that appeared in last month’s New York Times Magazine.  I see in it some of the same difficulties I see in clients.  It also makes me question how “half-empty” the glass really is.  Although in the interest of full disclosure, the writer has a book coming out.  In other news…

ONE FLAG! Six Flags Amusement Parks files for Chapter 11 protection.

Nashua NH Telegraph:  Welcome to the New Consumer Economy.

Boston Herald:  Consumer spending may never be the same as it was.

South Coast: Home values could take years to recover.  We also could be hitting bottom (I’m not being sarcastic, it says the market “could be a reading a valley”).  I could also be a ledge (ok, that was sarcastic).

Nantucket foreclosures.  I wonder if these homeowners claim their loan was predatory?  I also have to question whether it was.

A bad apple is removed from the barrel: Brockton lawyer settles fraud suit with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.

  • 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

Is Everyone ‘Subprime’?

That’s the question being asked by the folks over at Calculated Risk in light of a report issued today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

More here:

Calculated Risk

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision

  • Share/Bookmark

Victims of Foreclosure

I’ve written about it here before, and it’s worth repeating: the economy and the looming foreclosure crisis is affecting not only families. Pets are also feeling the effects.

From today’s Boston Herald:

The first wave of foreclosure-related pet surrenders arrived on [Boston's Animal Rescue League's] South End doorstep early last year, but soon after owners began just kicking pets out of the house, or driving away from foreclosed homes and leaving them behind.

If you’re facing financial difficulty, I implore you: please do not abandon your pet to fend for itself.  They will not be better off if left behind.  They will not be better off if dropped off at the side of the road.  Call a local shelter and get help with adoption.

And please, if you can help the Animal Rescue League, please do.

  • 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

Tell Congress: It’s Now or Never

Tomorrow (February 26) the House will vote on HR 1106, a housing package that includes the judicial modification provision of HR 200. That provision would let homeowners turn to the bankruptcy courts to allow them to modify the mortgages securing their principal residence. Currently, bankruptcy provides no remedy for homeowners who are trying to save their home from foreclosure.

While there are a number of complicated issues affecting our economy, the housing crisis continues to devolve.  The Washington Times reports that there is no relief in sight from foreclosures and the falling home values that help fueling it.  We can encourage Congress to do nothing, while the economy continues a downward spiral. Or we can tell them to pass this bill and give homeowners the chance they deserve in bankruptcy.

House approval is not guaranteed. The American Banks Association and the Financial Services Roundtable have sent letters to house leaders urging that the bankruptcy modification provisions be removed from the “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.”  The “buzz” I am hearing is that the lender lobbyists are showing up in “packs” in Member offices urging opposition to the judicial loan modification proposals.  “Packs.”  What the hell are they so scared of that they have to travel in packs?  According to a report from CNN, two-thirds of mortgage servicers have agreed to the foreclosure mitigation plan outlined by the Secretary of the Treasury.

[T]he prospect of a law amending the bankruptcy code to allow judges to dictate new terms on mortgages in the event of an individual filing bankruptcy, was also likely a significant factor in the companies’ willingness to cooperate with the administration’s plans.

The House is working on legislation which would be aimed at helping people in bankruptcy to hang on to their primary residences. It could see bankruptcy judges compelling mortgage-servicing companies to accept new terms on an individual’s mortgage.

Other than Citigroup, other large banks remain opposed to the bankruptcy-law change, arguing that it would lead to borrowers to seek bankruptcy at the first sign of trouble, rather than consider other options that might be more costly.

I don’t buy that – mainly because when I meet with clients, they are the first to tell me that filing bankruptcy is the last thing they wanted to do.   So to the lenders and their servicers, I say this: if the remaining one-third of you do not want bankruptcy judges modifying their loans, modify the loans so that the homeowner doesn’t have to file bankruptcy.  And for those two-thirds who have expressed a willingness to modify the loans, do it.  Let’s cut the crap and just do it.

Will it increase bankruptcy filings?  The Congressional Budget Office says yes.  But they also say that more than 1 million homeowners facing foreclosure could benefit from this legislation.  I view that as 1 million less people who will lose their home if this bill fails.  These people are our neighbors, our friends and our colleagues.

So what can you do?  Contact your member of Congress by phone or fax.

Email your friends and family.  Ask them to contact their congressional representative by phone or fax.

What do you tell them?  Try something like this:

We cannot end the financial crisis without stemming the rising tide of foreclosures. Court-supervised loan modification is an essential component of an effective and comprehensive plan to meet that challenge.  And unlike every other solution being considered in Washington, it comes at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

If we are successful tomorrow, we move over to the Senate.  If we are not, that is it.  No second chance.  So please don’t wait.  Support HR 1106.

And if you do not support it, I’ll remember.  I’ll remember it when my friend loses her home because she lost her job.  I’ll remember it when my house value plummets because the home next door is vacant and abandoned because the previous owner could not afford the payments.  I’ll remember it on election day.

Ok, so maybe that last bit is a little over the top, but you get my point.  It really is now or never.  And Congress really needs to know this now.

For more thoughts, check out Real Clear Politics:  Let Bankruptcy Courts Change Mortgages

Previous posts on the subject:

The President’s “Plan”

Mortgage Modification Legislation Update: Citigroup Supports the Bill

Keep the Bankruptcy Option On the Table

Changing Chapter 13: Some Facts on the Pandora’s Box

Mortgage Modification Update: Not So Hopeful

  • Share/Bookmark