Analysis of Foreclosure Fairness Act: Homeowner's Guide

On Friday, 4/8/2011, the State legislature delivered a bill to the Governor for signature on 04/14/2011 which will significantly change the process of foreclosure in the State of Washington.  The major change is that the legislature has delivered to the homeowners, a statutory right to sit down and talk turkey about modifying the loan that has become the bane of homeowners everywhere.  In 2007, the median net worth of a family in Washington was around $150,000.  Since that time, we have seen the stock market crash and the housing bubble burst, unemployment rise, real wages drop, and interest rates on mortgages climb.  On average, the American Household lost $125,000 by 2009.  When you compare the statistics, we should be plus side, $25,000.  The problem is, that the mortgage that secured the average home, didn’t go anywhere, and the though the median and the averages were in the $150,000 realm of net worth, those buying homes and refinancing in 2007 and earlier, were doing it on 100% loan to value terms and it is unlikely they were near the median in net worth.  Thus the average losses that impacted the portfolio didn’t turn into a mere $25,000 remainder, but left them insolvent and starring at bankruptcy. It is likely, that of the 33% of homeowners that have a mortgage that is underwater in the Puget Sound, your financial situation is sinking but this bill may provide a much needed life saver.

The Foreclosure Fairness Act will provide the homeowner the opportunity to force its banker to the table to discuss the realities of modifying the loan.  Prior to this, homeowners have fussed with lost documentation, forbearance agreements and the actions of a banking industry that border on the criminally negligent. In addition, the bill requires the bank to provide specific information in making a determination of what the best outcome will be based on present values of modification, foreclosure, short sale, deed in lieu, and whatever workouts may otherwise be arranged.  The problem will be getting through the hoops to make that banker sit there and look you in the eye with a mediator looking on and provide you this information.

Previously, the process of nonjudicial foreclosure in Washington was that the owner of your mortgage, the bank, would stop receiving the monthly payment.  In turn, the bank would declare the loan to be in default, and contact a trustee to initiate the nonjudicial foreclosure.  The trustee would send a Notice of Default out no earlier than seventy (70) days after the first missed payment and the home would be auctioned off about 120 days later.  The homeowner would then be forced to move by the twentieth day after the sale.  Thus the whole process would take about seven months or 210 days.

With the changes, the statute imposes on the bank a requirement that it send out a notice a full thirty 30 days before recording the Notice of Default that details your rights in sitting down with the bank.  If you don’t answer that letter, don’t worry, the bank will call you three times by telephone, and then send a certified letter.  Failure to meet that requirement means the bank cannot foreclose. 

If you do respond to the letter.... TO ACCESS THE REMAINDER OF THIS ARTICLE, and trust me you want to get the detailed analysis of this statute, PLEASE REGISTER FOR A FREE SEMINAR HERE. Just click on the green "register now" button for either a live event or the webinar, and the article will be emailed to you shortly.


My good friends at the Financial Revival Group liked my analysis last week that they bought the rights and are incorporating it into their workshops.  Must be good if someone is willing to buy it.

AG Settlement's Falls Short

Tomorrow, the AGs of the 50 states are supposed to reveal the great settlement that is going to impose upon the largest lenders some burden for the short cuts that helped deepen this recession.  The problem that some have found with this is that the AG's solution may actually lengthen the time that underwater properties plague our economy.  Some have gone so far as to find their own economists to attack the settlement because it may cause higher costs than what the lenders are actually going to give up ($25 billion in mortgage principal writedowns). Whether you think its good or not, or if you just don't agree with the banking industry, you will find supporters aplenty (counter argument-if you can call it that)

In some respects, I can understand the hand wringing because I too don't see the AG's settlement as a positive move.  I remember in 2008, when GM was on the verge of financial collapse and the government stepped in to save it, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York times.  In that piece, he explained that the GM should be allowed to go into bankruptcy.  It was likely the fastest way of curbing the executory contracts with its labor force and salvaging its beneficial intellectual, real, and personal properties so that they could be put to the best effect.  I agreed with Romney at the time he wrote that piece, and hindsight shows that the government intervention did little to alter the outcome, only delaying the inevitable restructuring of a failed enterprise. 

The difference though, in that Governmental-hand-of-god save of GM as compared to what the AGs are trying to with home owners, is that there isn't really any save.  In a blog post a couple of weeks back, I looked at the number of homes to be repossed this year alone, 1.2 million, and if all the principal writedowns were to go to those homeowners alone, it would only amount to $20,833 per home.  Considering that in our present market, homes have lost nearly 1/3 value since 2007 for an average of over $100,000, that write down doesn't even scratch the surface.  When applied to the nearly 5 million homes in default, that number dwindles away to become inconsequential.  Consider this, last month, I negotiated a second mortgage of nearly $100,000 for a payoff of $10,000 and still failed to bring the home flush, its close, but still not flush.

The economists hired to look at this deal though, have made some gross assumptions that lack reason when comparing write downs to loan modifications.   In my opinion, it shows either a lack of understanding in what is actually being offered by the banks, or blatant disregard for factual circumstances.  Your choice, I either call you ignorant or a liar.  Home loan modifications, as described by the FDIC guidelines and those developed in GSEs, basically say that the bank has to be as well off as if it got its original deal.  The banks are not bending over backwards to write off billions of dollars in mortgages, especially when people are still paying.  Many of the modifications simply add the amount of arrears on to the end of the mortgage, extend the time from a 30 year fixed to a 40 year fixed, and alter the interest rate.  This amounts to no change, no principal write down.  What the AG's are requiring is actual write down.  We take the terms as they stand, and then the lender lops off some portion of the principal.  The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. 

The authors of the ecnomics paper argue taht the changes are going increase strategic default, but it isn't as if there is need for additional incentive.  A home being $100,000 upside down is incentive enough.  The write downs may actually incentivize homeowners to stay and pay.  Which brings me to my reasoning for not linking the settlement.  I am affraid it will limit private action against the banks, and it doesn't go far enough to incentivize homeowners to stay in their homes. If you are going to do it, do it right, make it effective, and by all means, go after every penny of revenue that the banks have stolen from local governments in the forms of excise taxes.  Then, provide a broader forum for individual homeowners to obtain compensation, and by all means, allow them to lop off most if not all of their underwater mortgage.

If homeowners are a little bit underwater, the emotional attachment to the home will allow them to pay the extra money that they will to hold on to the memories of birthdays, anniversaries, births, marriages, and simple day to day glimpses of the past.  But if homeowners are stuck with putting their monthly mortgage payment through a shredder each and every month that their property loses value, strategic default, and simple missed payments will continue.  I personally am happy to help anyone down the path of strategic default and extract the cash from the lenders in anyway possible, but if you can modify and stay, then more power to you but don't count on the AG's Settlement, it simply falls short of real relief.

Trustee Where Art Thou?

If you own property in Washington, you more than likely signed a deed of trust.  It was one of the thicker documents in that stack of paperwork that you didn't read but it can be summed up like this.  You gave some third party the right to sell your house if you don't pay.  The trustee is chosen by the beneficiary (read that as bank) and is oft time paid for by the beneficiary, usually only when the home is going into foreclosure because it us underwater.  However, that doesn't mean that he works for the beneficiary as we would traditionally look at an employee.  Its more like a professional, that is why attorneys often work as trustees.

Just because a Trustee is appointed by the banks, it still has a duty to the Borrower or homeowner.  By statute, the Trustee owes the borrower a duty of good faith.  According to case law decided prior to the language in the statute being added, the duty was that of a fiduciary.  Other than in an esoteric, legal debate do those two standards have much space between them.  Both are high standards and the Trustee must meet that standard in its dealing with the borrower.

So you can imagine my surprise this afternoon when I am making a phone call on behalf of a borrower.  The Trustee screwed up the paperwork on the Notice of Default.  Some people think I am being nit picky when I complain about the trustee not being able to do math, and that was the case here also.  However, in addition to not being able to do simple addition, the trustee's printer had cut off the last few digits of some of the numbers so that they were unreadable.  You may wonder how I could do math with missing numbers, but I can do multiplication as well, and the inputs for the missing numbers were available. 

So over a month ago, a letter was sent informing the trustee that it had screwed up, a phone call was returned saying, hey, we're reissuing the notice of default.  Today, in checking on the sale, it was still on, so new letters were sent, and phone calls were made.

In my phone conversation with the woman working for the Trustee, presumably the trustee, as the Trustee is a corporation, she said that I had to talk to the beneficiary about reissuing the Notice of Default.  Well, I said the trustee is the one responsible for issuing the NOD and so I need to talk to the trustee.  Trustee says to me on the phone, "We don't make decisions, we do what the lender tells us to do." My response, stunned silence.

Due to the duty of good faith, there must be more responsibility with the trustee.  It cannot simply say we do as the bank tells us.  That would be like the trustee of a child's trust saying, I do whatever the kid wants me to do.   So if the kid wants a million dollars of chewing gum, he gets it?  I don't think so.

The opposite of Good Faith, is Bad Faith.  Bad Faith is something that can be pursued in a civil action much like any other tort.  The other nice thing about bad faith, is it lends itself to consumer protection actions.  Trustees need to be wary, because responses like that make me wonder where the real trustee is, and if he agrees with the asinine things his employees say.

AG Foreclosure Settlement and the Little Red Hen

I am fond of the children's story, The Little Red Hen.  To me, it has always stood for self reliance and capitalism.  When individuals share in the work, they share in the rewards, but when an individual cannot be bothered to lift a hand in the cause of industry, they are left to what they put their hands.  The Little Red Hen offered to include everyone, everyone declined, until she had produced her bread and then everyone wanted a slice.

Last Thursday, the individual states Attorneys General gathered in Washington, DC to discuss a settlement with the biggest banks over the improprieties in handling foreclosures throughout the United States.  The number that was reached, at least as reported in some places is $20 billion.

To you and me, that sounds really big.  $20 Billion with "b."  But, as you start to delve into the number, I have a flash back to Austin Powers and Dr. Evil putting his pinky to his teeth when he says a "million dollars" as if that were some astronomical amount of cash which would shock the civilized world.  Instead, we pat our mouths as the yawn emerges.

Imagine that in the US, where we have a population of nearly 300 million people and of that vast number of individuals, there were 1 million households that were affected by the housing crash.  No imagine, that these people that have lost anywhere from 15 to 50% of their house value in the course of 3 to 4 years, would offering them $20 billion even seem like it would act like a bandaid for the financial scar on their lives?  The amount being sought, is $20,000 per household.  That doesn't even cover the down payment most of these people put on their now underwater homes.

These families have searched the internet, sought out housing counselors, short sale specialists, and the smart ones have found attorneys that understand the significance of the battle that is being fought and have put up a good fight.  These little red hens, if you will, have gathered the wheat, ground it, made their dough, and baked it.  As they sit down to eat, it would appear that every farm animal that was too busy to be bothered has enlisted the AG's to broker a deal to get them a slice.

To be clear, I am not for the settlement, I think the consumer is being sold down the river.  The banks are going to walk with a slap on the wrist while the little red hens are told they can't eat their bread because the AG's made a bad deal, with bad people, all in the name of taking care of everyone.  The fact is, if you want protection (bread) get your own.  I work with a handful of good attorneys in the Puget Sound that have secured settlements and negotiated deals that make $20k look like pennies on the dollar.  The AGs can keep their settlement if it means that I can't do for my clients what I have been doing.

Dual Track Foreclosures and Forbearance Agreements

Tools are good, tools help us save time, save money, and sometimes even save lives.  The term, forbearance is defined as refraining from something.  In the context of underwater homes and homeowners attempting to salvage their upside down property, forbearance sounds like a god send, the relief from the storm, a life-saver, a good tool.  When forbearance is coupled with "dual track foreclosure," forbearance shouldn't sound anything like a life-saver but more like a mill stone hanged about the neck of the homeowner.

Legislators in California are trying to implement a law that would make the activities of some home loan servicing firms illegal, the act of offering a forbearance agreement while simultaneously moving down the foreclosure path.  That would be the definition of a dual track foreclosure.  Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) (no relation to Jay Leno) said "Banks should not foreclose on a  family's home until they inform the owner whether the loan can be modified to an affordable level...homeowners who qualify for modifications should get them - not a foreclosure notice."

The turn of phrase used in the news article, "modified to an affordable level," caught my eye and reminded me of a class action lawsuit I had read about.  The sign up for the case is found here, and is being brought against Aurora Loan Services LLC of Littleton, CO by Hagens Berman, a national law firm with offices here in Seattle.  The interesting thing about this case is that it is taking a judicial tack at what the legislatures are trying to make illegal.

THe complaint is being handled in U.S. District Court in California and can be read here, but the gist is as follows:  The homeowner goes into default by missing payments and seeks modification help to save the home from foreclosure.  Aurora Loan Services LLC continues the foreclosure process but finally comes to the homeowner and offers them a "forbearance agreement."  The agreement requires the homeowner to make a sizable up front payment followed by 4 to 6 monthly installments.  The amounts paid will not bring the mortgage current, so the homeowner continues to be in default.  The servicer is "checking to see if the homeowner qualifies for modification," and then when the homeowner magically doesn't qualify at the end of month six, the home is foreclosed, no additional notices are provided.

This is plausible scenario even here in Washington under the Deed of Trust Act.  The act requires direct notices to the homeowner in the form of the Notice of Default and the Notice of Trustee's sale which come a minimum of 120 and 90 days before the sale, but the sale can be unilaterally pushed back by the Trustee for up to 120 days.  Thus a forbearance agreement could be signed after an original date of sale is issued, the agreement would not interfere with the propriety of a sale as long as it occurred within 7 months of issuing the original Notice of Trustee's sale.  Do you see where this going?

The trustee issues the Notice of Trustee's Sale and almost simultaneously the Servicer issues a forbearance agreement which uses the possibility of a loan modification as inducement for signing.  The agreement asks for roughly two months worth of payments up front and then four additional installments to paid on a recurring day each month, like the 20th.  The agreement states that if the homeowner will provide required documentation, the Servicer will determine if the homeowner qualifies for a modification.  This is music to the desperate homeowner's ears, but its a sham.

The success rate of modifications under HAMP or otherwise is between 3.5% and 12%, depending on which governmental metric you want to follow.  The modification program is routinely used by the banks to keep loans that would otherwise seek refinance at another institution.  Thus the number of modifications for those that are desperate is probably even lower. Consequently, most of the forbearance agreements are not really promising to do anything for the homeowner.

The real problem with these forbearance agreements is the payment.  Under the Deed of Trust act, the homeowner can walk away from the underwater home and make no payments during the time of the foreclosure process.  So, each payment received under the forbearance agreement is essentially free money to the servicer who would not normally see any money during the process.

To add insult to injury, the Servicer receives higher fees when the loan is in default than it does when the payments are current.  The investors in the Mortgage Back Securities are thus not seeing a very high percentage of the money flowing from the homeowner, rather it is being siphoned off at the servicer and Trustee level.  I am sure you wouldn't be surprised to learn that the servicers and trustees are generally subsidiaries of large mortgage banks.

Bottom line, the forbearance agreement is most likely a tool to take money out of your pocket and not a tool to save your home.  Don't be a tool, tell the bank to shove the forbearance agreement and short circuit the dual track foreclosure before it gets started.