Strategic Defaults or “Buy and Bail”? What do you call it when you walk away from your home after the lender refuses to do anything meaningful as far as loss mitigation?
There is a new wave of happenings in the loss mitigation marketplace. When a loan servicer or lender fails to modify a loan (especially loans that are upside down and in need of principal reduction) some buyers are deciding to blow off the lender and just walk away from the property.
Well of course the lenders are up in arms about this financial preservation strategy (as I learned in contract law many years ago, this is the concept of “efficient breach” wherein sometimes it is simply in ones best interest to breach a contract). Of course the rules change when the efficient breach is perpetrated on the mighty banks. To them this is “mortgage fraud” or “buy and bail” or “unethical” or “immoral.”
What banks fail to realize is that if they would provide MEANINGFUL MODIFICATIONS WITH ALL THE TAXPAYER FUNDED BAILOUT MONEY THEY RECEIVED PERHAPS PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE BAILING OUT ON THE LENDERS.
IF THE LENDERS (AND THEIR INVESTORS WHO INVESTED IN THE SECURITIZED LOANS) DO NOT WANT TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL LOAN MODIFICATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO WHAT’S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, SHOULD THEY REALLY BE SURPRISED THAT BORROWERS AND HOMEOWNERS ARE PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS BY PURSUING WHAT SOME WOULD CALL A “STRATEGIC DEFAULT” STRATEGY.
Now, before you exercise these types of strategies, it would be wise to consult with a foreclosure defense lawyer to discuss your options, review your situation, and to analyze whether or not there is any liability in this regard. Whether or not something is immoral or unethical is a different question than whether or not something is illegal and can result in civil liability. Have your case reviewed.
IN THIS MARKETPLACE IT SEEMS THE TIDE IS SHIFTING TO AN EVERY MAN AND EVERY COMPANY FOR THEMSELVES APPROACH REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT THAT MAY RESULT TO LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN DEFUAULT. WHO IS TO BLAME IS A QUESTION OF WHICH CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG.
(1) Litigation is expensive and should be deemed one of the last resorts you consider along with Bankruptcy.
(2) You need a loan that has been originated within the past several years. Some people call on option arm (pick-a-pay loans) that are 7 years old. Probably not a good candidate for filing a lawsuit.
(3) You need to distinguish between suing your broker who put you into the loan (ex. a suit for fraud, deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, etc.) from a suit against the “lender” of the loan (who will usually claim no wrongdoing, and assert that the broker is to blame not them), and distinguish among the current holder of your loan (who will also claim no fault and just claim to be a loan investor or holder in due course), from your loan servicer (the company you are making payments to on your loan, and who likely has no liability for the option arm loan. You need to find a way to hold your current owner/investor liable and need to normally find a way to get an injunction to stop foreclosure (since this is the goal most people have). This is not always an easy task to identify proper grounds for a TRO or injunction. One good ground is a Truth in Lending (TILA) rescission claim.
(4) You need to determine your chances of winning especially if you are unable to get a preliminary injunction or TRO and the case goes to trial on the issue of money damages. Will the jury like your case? Some cases are better than other. For example, if you are an investor with 5 other loans, each with an option arm loan, and you took cash out on these loans, you have to ask whether a jury will really see you as the victim, or rather, just a disgruntled investor trying to litigate back his real estate losses. On the other side of the spectrum, if you are elderly couple, or minority, and none of your previous loans were option arm loans, and you were truly misinformed, deceived, and lied to in regard to the option arm loan, the teaser rate, the repayment options, and loan recasting feature, etc., this may be a better case to litigate. Each case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits.
(5) You should think about whether there is a better way to accomplish your goals (ex. pursuing a loan modification, or seeking a short sale of an upside-down property, or seeking a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure).
These are just a few items to think about. If you want to have your option arm loan / pick-a-pay / negam loan evaluated for litigation potential fill out this form and we will look it over: http://www.optionarmlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Option-Arm-Loan-Litigation-Questionnaire1.pdf
IF YOUR LENDER OR LOAN SERVICER HAS REFUSED TO WORK WITH YOU IN GOOD FAITH IN EITHER LOAN MODIFICATION, SHORT SALE, DEED-IN-LIEU OF FORECLOSURE, ETC., YOU MAY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO SUE YOUR LENDER TO (LIKE MANY DIFFERENT ATTORNEY GENERALS HAVE DONE) AND SEEK EITHER MONEY DAMAGES AND/OR RESCISSION AND INJUNCTIONS. TO SEE IF YOU MAY HAVE A LEGAL CASE OUR FIRM WOULD CONSIDER HANDLING, PRINT OUT THE ATTACHED FORM, COMPLETE IT, AND SEND IT BACK TO US. WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE GROUNDS TO FILE AN OPTION ARM LAWSUIT DEPENDS ON MANY FACTORS, INCLUDING WHETHER OR NOT YOUR ORIGINAL LENDER IS YOUR CURRENT LENDER, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE EVEN STILL IN BUSINESS, WHETHER A BROKER WAS USED, ETC. THIS OPTION ARM QUESTIONNAIRE PROVIDES US WITH SOME BASIC INFORMATION.
We are getting more and more calls from people who have decided to give up on the hopes of principal loan balance reduction (we have always told people principal loan balance reductions are like a bigfoot sighting) and instead seek to short sell their property letting the bank deal with the property, especially where the stubborn bank (that got their bailout) refuses to help the homeowner save their home by providing a reasonable and meaningful loan modification.
Now, in the context of shot sales, there are a few things to consider:
(1) Will you be liable for a deficiency judgment (meaning if the lender allows you to sell your home for less than its worth, can the lender come back against you for a deficiency judgment?
We have talked about deficiency judgments in Arizona on one of our other websites: Click here for more general legal information: http://www.arizonadeficiencyjudgment.com/
(2) Are there tax implications involved with the lender forgiving debt owed?
(3) Are you entitled to $1,500 relocation expenses following a short sale under the HAFA (Short Sales Incentives law)?
(4) Do you qualify for HAFA?
We outlined the general qualifications for HAFA and some of the general rules on our HAFA short sale blog which can be found here: http://activerain.com/blogsview/1546150/short-sales-overview-before-and-in-anticipation-of-hafa
(5) Can a forensic loan audit and letter to your lender help assist in them accepting a short sale over forcing you into foreclosure? Do you have any predatory lending violations that you can leverage? Is it better to file a lawsuit against your lender?
We have previously outlined some of the things we look for in an Attorney forensic loan audit on this website: http://vondranlegal.com/2009/08/15/what-is-a-forensic-loan-audit/
(6) What other options might you have if the lender refuses to accept your short sale? Options such as filing bankruptcy or pursuing a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure?
Our Arizona bankruptcy website can be found at www.ArizonaBankruptcyResourceCenter.com
WHAT LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT LENDERS AND LOAN SERVICERS REALLY THINK ABOUT YOUR ATTEMPT TO FIGHT TO SAVE YOUR HOME FROM FORECLOSURE
Here is a recent email exchange I had with one of the large lender/loan servicers in regard to asserting my Client’s Truth in Lending rescission rights.
This email allows you to get a little flavor of what the big bad bailed out banks think about helping other people who need a bailout.
HERE WAS HIS EMAIL QUESTION TO ME:
It is a mystery to me why lawyers get involved with clients simply to delay the inevitable. The only reason I’ve been able to fathom is that the lawyer gets paid instead of the bank, while the borrower continues to live in the house. Doesn’t seem like a good way to keep one’s malpractice insurance premiums down.
I’m not suggesting that is what you’re doing here. However, XXXXXXX must protect itself and the loan owner from such pointless shenanigans.
I’m not aware of a new date for the foreclosure sale, but this doesn’t mean that one hasn’t been set……
NOTICE HOW HE SEEMS INTENT ON LECTURING ME ABOUT MY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE. IN HIS WORLD, THERE IS NO TAKING ON THE BANKS, NO QUESTIONING THE BANKS, NO DEFIANCE THAT WILL BE TOLERATED BY THE BANKS, THEY GOT THEIR MODIFICATION BUT HOW DARE YOU TRY TO ASSERT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE VALID TRUTH IN LENDING RESCISION RIGHTS WERE PRESENTED AS PROOF TO THIS GUY. HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO THE GENTLEMAN.
XXXXXXXX,
I can appreciate your position here are a few mysteries I am looking for answers to:
(1) Why when banks get bailed out big time, do they act like no homeowner deserves a decent bailout?
(2) Why in all of my cases where I find a bona fide Truth in Lending (”TILA”) violation, does the lender always either (a) deny that the violation exists in the face of attached documentary evidence, or (b) refuse to even respond to a TILA rescission letter?
Unfortunately, court says “no way” and declares THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE ANYONE PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE AS A PRE-REQUISITE TO PURSUING A PRIVATE TRUSTEE SALE. Here are a few snipets from the case:
MY COMMENTS ARE IN BOLD AND MERELY REPRESENT MY OPINION.
Chilton v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 5197869 (E.D.Cal.)
ORDER RE PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff filed a complaint on December 16, 2009, alleging that Defendant, Federal National Mortgage Association, violated unspecified provisions of federal law within “Title 15 U.S.C. and/or Title 18 U.S.C.” because Defendant initiated non-judicial foreclosure on her property, located in Clovis, California, without possessing the genuine original note.” She advances no other bases for relief.
Plaintiff has also filed an “order to show cause and motion for temporary restraining order,” in an attempt to block the foreclosure process.
To obtain temporary or permanent injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits. Here, Plaintiff’s only legal theory has been resoundingly rejected as a basis for relief. It is well-established that non-judicial foreclosures can be commenced without producing the original promissory note.
THAT’S THE PART THAT HURTS. I SUPPOSE ANYONE WHO SHOWS UP ON FORECLOSURE DAY CLAIMING TO BE THE HOLDER OF THE LOAN (WHETHER IT IS MERS PRETENDING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OR THE NOMINEE OF THE LENDER, THE LOAN SERVICER PRETENDING TO BE THE HOLDER OF THE LOAN OR SOME OTHER THIRD PARTY, LIKE WALLMART FOR EXAMPLE, CLAIMING TO BE THE HOLDER OF THE LOAN) GETS AN UNFETTERED RIGHT TO FORECLOSE, AND A FREE PASS FROM ANY JUDICIAL SCRUTINY WHATSOEVER.
The Court went on to state:
“Non-judicial foreclosure under a deed of trust is governed by California Civil Code Section 2924 which relevant section provides that a “trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents” may conduct the foreclosure process.” California courts have held that the Civil Code provisions “cover every aspect” of the foreclosure process, (case cited), and are “intended to be exhaustive,”(another case cited). There is no requirement that the party initiating foreclosure be in possession of the original note.
AFTER LEVELING THIS BLOW THE COURT CITED A FEW OTHER CASES THAT RESULTED IN THE SAME OUTCOME FOR PLAINTIFFS ASSERTING THE “PRODUCE THE NOTE” FORECLOSURE DEFENSE STRATEGY (OBVIOUSLY IN AN ATTEMPT TO TELL FUTURE LITIGANTS IN CALIFORNIA “GIVE UP TRYING TO VERIFY ANYONES CREDENTIALS”):
(1) See, e.g., Nool v. HomeQ Servicing, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2009 WL 2905745 (Sep. 4 2009) (”There is no requirement that the party initiating foreclosure be in possession of the original note.”);
RUNNING OUT OF TIME FOR WACHOVIA AND WORLD SAVINGS OPTION ARM LOANS
This is an update for all of our Clients who have World Savings and Option Arm Loans. As you may have heard on our radio show www.LoanModRadio.com (The Foreclosure Defense Show), we have been successful helping many homeowners who have World Savings and Option Arm Loans get loan modifications without charging any advance fees. Please note, our program may only be last another month or so for reasons beyond our control.
We have documentable principal reduction (however this is no guarantee of such) in a good number of cases where the Wachovia or World Savings Homeowner was upside-down in their properties and a principal loan balance reduction was needed to make the modification work.
THIS MAY BE OUR LAST CALL FOR LOAN MODIFICATIONS FOR WORLD SAVINGS OPTION ARM LOANS AND WACHOVIA OPTION ARM LOANS. IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE TYPES OF LOANS CALL US TO DISCUSS OUR FANTASTIC LOAN MODIFICATION PROGRAM.
PART OF THE REASON FOR OUR SUCCESS ON THE OPTION ARM LOANS COMES FROM OUR UNDERSTAND OF THESE PREDATORY LOANS. YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION OPTION ARM LOANS AT WWW.OPTIONARMLAWYER.COM
COMMERCIAL LOAN MODIFICATION ADVANCE FEE AGREEMENT FOR SALE
Okay, so SB 94 was passed preventing California DRE brokers (and Attorneys and others) from taking advance fees for loan modification and mortgage forbearance work. This has literally run many loan modification companies (both the loan mod scammers and legitimate loan modification companies) right out of business. As loan modifications can take anywhere from 3-15 months to complete, most companies cannot afford to operate financially in this type of environment.
Keep in mind, SB94 only prohibits the collection of advance fees for residential loan modifications. California licensed DRE brokers may start, or continue serving commercial clients in the area of loan modification / loan workouts / loan restructuring. I recently contacted the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) and learned they are still approving commercial loan modification advance fee agreements.
During the early days of the residential loan modification business, I did have the privilege of helping roughly 50+ companies get approved with a DRE approved advanced fee agreement (“approved” really means the advance fee agreement had received a “letter of non-objection” from the department).
During this period, I was also able to get a COMMERCIAL ADVANCE FEE AGREEMENT APPROVED, WHICH AGREEMENT RECEIVED A LETTER OF NON-OBJECTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE.
It is fairly common knowledge that the commercial market lags behind the residential market and will be facing their own financial issues, including the need for loan modification, loan workout, loan restructuring, and short sale work. If you have commercial real estate and commercial loan experience, you may want to investigate the commercial loan modification arena.
If you feel you are a good fit, and want to serve this segment of commercial real estate clients in financial distress, contact us to discuss our previously approved commercial loan modification agreement.
For those of you who have previously tried to draft your own residential and commercial loan modification agreements, and present it to the department for approval, you probably realize what a difficult task it can often be to get your agreement approved. If you make one tiny mistake (and their are lots of potential grounds for denial of your commercial advance fee agreement) you are basically denied and must make the edits, and re-submit the advance fee agreement, costing you lost time, and potential lost sales.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO GET INTO THE COMMERCIAL LOAN MODIFICATION MARKET AND SERVED FINANCIALLY STRAPPED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND INVESTORS, AND YOU INTEND ON COLLECTING ADVANCE FEES FOR YOUR SERVICES, YOU WILL NEED AN ADVANCE FEE AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE.
AN UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA LOAN MODIFICATION SCAMS AND SB 94 – CONSUMERS MUST REMAIN ALERT AND VIGILANT
Well the last year has been pretty crazy in the loan modification business. We have seen lots of companies being shut down by the California Department of Real Estate and California State bar (ex. brokers, attorneys, “attorney-backed” and “attorney-based” law centers and fictional “law groups” etc.) who were found out as being nothing more than scams, shams, and ripoff artists.
Some of the reasons these companies were the subject of cease and desist (or desist and refrain) letters is the following:
-They held themselves out as loan modification specialists and loan modification experts when in fact they had no special skill, training, experience, or track record.
-They took advance fees without the proper advance fee agreement that received a letter of non-objection from the DRE.
-They collected advance fees but failed to properly place funds in a Client trust account.
-They failed to properly provide verified accountings as required by the California Department of Real Estate.
-They failed to have all of the loan modification advertising approved by the DRE.
-They took files that were in notice of default (this applies to the non-attorneys) in violation of the Foreclosure Consultant Law.
-The committed other acts of outright fraud, misrepresentation, deceit and false advertising.
-In the case of Loan Modification Attorneys they may have illegally partnered with non-attorneys (such as brokers and foreclosure consultants) that would not only tout the attorneys services – taking the form of an illegal runner or capper – but also illegally splitting what could be construed as a legal fee, and engaging in other shady conduct that violates an attorneys code of ethics.
In addition, Post SB94, some entities accepted an advance fee in violation of SB94 which prohibits both attorneys, brokers, and foreclosure consultants from accepting any type of advance fee for loan modification or foreclosure forbearance work.
- They failed to provide refunds when their contracts stated they would, or where verbal representations of 100% money back guarantee were given.
Yes, there were a whole lot of callous and cavalier people/companies raking homeowners over the coals for their own personal gain, and without any morals or scruples. I guess you could say there were a bunch of Bernie Madoff’s in the loan modification business.
From what we could tell, the Attorney loan mod scammers often were either the “newbie” Attorneys who had no clue what was going on and didn’t care (and may have had a hard time finding legal jobs in the tough economic climate following law school) and/or 20 or 30 year attorneys who could care less whether or not the State bar stripped their license to practice law (I think some of these attorney violators were racking up so much money, and trying to ship it off-shore for their retirement purposes). In fact, we heard one Southern California Attorney, who was disbarred for his loan modification shennanigans, had over 1,700 loan files that he had charged over $6,000 a piece to help modify their loans (yes, that is about 11 million dollars). This information was relayed to our office by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who helped stopped the attorneys scam, and put the joker out of business.
QUIET TITLE ACTIONS IN CALIFORNIA – A BASIC OVERVIEW
The following is general legal information and is not to be construed as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. The information below many not be complete, accurate, or up-to-date as law can, and does frequently change. For specific questions about your quiet title case, contact a real estate or foreclosure defense attorney to review the facts of your case.
Steve Vondran, Esq. practices Real Estate, Foreclosure Defense & Bankruptcy Law in Phoenix, Arizona, and California where he is licensed to practice law. He can be reached atsteve@vondranlaw.com or (877) 276-5084.
CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE LAW – A GENERAL OVERVIEW
The statutory provisions for Quiet Title in California can be found in the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 760.10-760.060. A Quiet Title action is basically a legal action that seeks to “quiet title” to property where adverse claims are made against the property. For example, where a lender wrongfully forecloses on a property and claims the property as their own, but the homeowner challenges this.
Here is the California Quiet Title Statutory Law (there are also cases interpreting these quiet title provisions). Bolded and italics material are provided by me:
760.010. As used in this chapter:
(a) “Claim” includes a legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in property or cloud upon title.
(b) “Property” includes real property, and to the extent
applicable, personal property.
760.020. (a) An action may be brought under this chapter to establish title against adverse claims to real or personal property or any interest therein.
(b) An action may be brought under this chapter by parties to an agreement entered into pursuant to Section 6307 or 6357 of the Public Resources Code to confirm the validity of the agreement.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right of members of the public to bring or participate in actions challenging the validity of agreements entered into pursuant to Section 6307 or 6357 of the Public Resources Code.
