Is Mediation the Answer?
By Jennifer Harmon
Foreclosures are costly to the borrower, servicers and the investors who take losses on the sale of those properties. It’s also expensive to the taxpayers in the communities where these foreclosures are taking place. Foreclosures drive down property value. They often result in an increased level of blight and crime, and property tax revenue decreases because of the decline in value.
The Obama administration is doing everything in its power to reduce foreclosures through the Home Affordable Modification Program. While many are focusing on the refi and modification components of the plan, the Center for American Progress says that mandatory mediation should be incorporated into that process to make sure that the people who are eligible for these programs will in fact get the assistance that they need.
The report, “It’s Time We Talked: Mandatory Mediation in the Foreclosure Process,” outlines how foreclosures can be reduced by as much as 75% if the federal government takes a more direct role in providing opportunities for mediation.
Philadelphia and Connecticut are two places that have had mediation programs in place for about a year now. About three-quarters of all cases that go through mediation are able to avoid foreclosure, according to Andrew Jakabovics, the organization’s associate director for housing and economics. “That really shows that there is an alternative to foreclosure that is beneficial to everybody,” he said. “I think it can be wrapped up nicely into the ongoing administration’s efforts.”
Mediation is simply a voluntary negotiation between two parties in the presence of a neutral third party. The important thing about it is that it’s voluntary negotiation. It’s not bankruptcy and it’s not a cramdown.
Mandatory mediation begins when a foreclosure notice goes out to both parties at the beginning of the process. The servicer and homeowner are required to appear at a particular time on a particular date for a mediation session.If a servicer is participating in a mediation session and feels like it is not beneficial and doesn’t think he will make more from settling than in foreclosure, the servicer never has to settle.
One of the potential pitfalls in the program is that borrowers who are eligible for HAMP are not necessarily getting the modifications under the program either because the servicers are applying the wrong numbers or they are actively steering borrowers to non-HAMP-compliant loans, said Mr. Jakabovics.
“One of the things mediation would do is simply say if a borrower in the process of getting foreclosed on goes to a mediation session, the servicer is there and says, ‘Look, you didn’t qualify.’ This gives the borrower basically an appeals process that is currently missing from HAMP so the borrower can say, ‘Here are my numbers. What numbers were you looking at?’ The servicer might go back and look at them and see if they can actually reach a deal.”
Given that the compliance checks on HAMP are several months out, the detailed checks are not likely to start until October. There are problems these compliance checks might not catch. “Certainly, come October if something gets flagged and is eligible for HAMP, but the borrower was not offered the modification, it does the borrower very little good if they are already out of their home,” said Mr. Jakabovics.
Getting borrowers and servicers together in the same room appears to have tremendous value. Mediation might be an ideal way to make sure the servicer is getting it right. They are not going to be making any more deals that are less valuable to them than what they would have gotten in foreclosure.
Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2009
California shows recovery in Housing
California housing market shows pockets of recoveryA surge in home sales that started in some of California 's more affordable inland areas has begun to spread to several more expensive coastal areas, another indicator that the state's real estate market may be in recovery mode. Many homes in the lower end of the market are receiving multiple offers, with some prospective buyers bidding well above asking prices. Inventory levels for homes priced under $500,000 stood at 3.2 months in May 2009, compared with 9.4 months in May 2008.Some buyers, especially those in historically higher-priced markets such as the San Francisco Bay Area, are newly optimistic about buying homes and are realizing that the combination of low interest rates, favorable home prices, and first-time home buyer tax credits may not realign for many years.Some housing economists caution against interpreting signs of increased sales activity as meaning the market has bottomed. Interest rates on 30-year, fixed-rate prime mortgages have risen above 5 percent in recent weeks and could continue to increase as fears of inflation impact interest rates. Additionally, the federal tax credit for first-time home buyers is scheduled to end Nov. 30, which may remove the incentive to purchase.Although the median price in the state has risen for four consecutivemonths, prices in some higher-income neighborhoods still are declining. Some agents say that declining prices in these neighborhoods are a reflection of borrowers' problems getting jumbo mortgages to make purchases. This month's Market Snapshot features: Buyers who are having difficulty arranging financing or coming up with a down payment may want to consider rent-to-own or lease-options. Generally, these deals require buyers to pay extra amounts of rent each month, in addition to the normal market-rate rent, plus up-front fees of approximately 5 percent of the purchase price. The owner keeps the regular rent, but the additional payments are used to buy down the price of the home. While rent-to-own options may be a viable choice for some buyers, most real estate experts recommend buyers and sellers work with attorneys experienced in drafting lease-option agreements. Although rent-to-own options enable buyers to walk away from the deal for a variety of reasons, including deciding the home or neighborhood isn't a good fit; one drawback is that by walking away, buyers agree to forfeit the up-front fees and the additional monthly rent they've been paying. Additionally, at the end of the term, if the buyer still is unable to secure financing they also may have to forfeit the money.
Chinese Drywall Litigation about to Snowball Industry
Chinese Drywall Insurance Litigation
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
We have seen this to date from the perspective of increasing claims being made, both state and federal regulators seeking ways to regulate, protect consumers and also determine responsibility and liability for the damages caused by Chinese drywall. Concurrently, the first lawsuits regarding insurance coverage for these claims are starting to move through the courts. Following is a discussion of the issue from that perspective.
Homeowner's PoliciesIn March 2009, Baker v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 09-cv-188 was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Baker is the first complaint regarding homeowner’s insurance for drywall claims. In the Baker case, two Florida policyholders sued their homeowners’ insurer, seeking coverage for property damage resulting from Chinese drywall in their home. The Complaint filed was rather plain. with the policyholders alleging that they notified their insurer of a loss in December 2008 caused from the gases emitted by drywall. The Complaint alleges further that the insurer verbally denied the claim based on “contamination,” but that no formal declination has been issued. In its answer, the insurer denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for pollution, wear and tear, and faulty materials. The insurer also answered that the claim fell outside the policy period. Apparently, the insurer is trying to base some of its reasoning for denial of coverage that the damage occurred at the time the drywall was installed, not the time it began to emit noxious odors. Commercial General Liability PoliciesInsurance disputes concerning contractors' Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policies are also pending. In April 2009, it was reported that Lennar Corporation, one of the principal defendants in Florida’s Chinese drywall litigation, stated that it believed that its insurance would cover the drywall claims. There has been no comment from the insurer. However, the insurer of another homebuilder commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia, Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. Dragas Management Corporation, 2:09-cv-185. Builders Mutual is seeking a declaration that it did not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for Chinese drywall based on the pollution exclusion and the work-product exclusions.
The Component Not Product ArgumentInsurance industry experts are watching the Chinese drywall suits and comparing them to past litigation involving EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finishing Systems), a building product that provides exterior walls with an insulated finished surface, and waterproofing in an integrated composite material system. The analogy between Chins Drywall and EIFS is that both products are components incorporated into a structure, and as such were intended to have the same useful life of the structure. In Keck v Dryvit Systems, Inc., 830 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2002), the Alabama Supreme Court held that such components are not “products” within the meaning of the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), stating:
The owner of a house or of any building should reasonably expect that many components will have the same useful life as the house or building itself and will not need to be replaced over the life of the building. Such components include, by way of example, an exterior brick wall, a staircase, or a fireplace. There are also certain components of a house or a building the purchaser reasonably expects to wear out and to require replacement in the course of normal and ordinary usage, such as roof shingles, a dishwasher, a furnace, or a hot-water heater. Whether an item that is incorporated into real property may be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD is determined by whether the item is a part of the structural integrity of the house or building that is reasonably expected to last for the useful life of the house or building. If it is, then the item cannot be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD. However, if the item is attached or incorporated into real property and, yet its very function and nature clearly makes it an item that one would reasonably expect to repair or to replace during the useful life of the realty, the item may be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD. For instance, although paint, when applied to the structure of a wall, becomes incorporated into the surface of the wall, paint is a structural improvement that does not have the same useful life as the wall itself or the building to which the wall is attached; one would expect to have to repaint a wall to maintain the quality of the first application. Therefore, paint would be considered a product for purposes of the AEMLD.The Keck Court held that EIFS was intended to last for the useful life of the structure, and was not subject to the AEMLD. Further, the Court also held that it was not a “good” under the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore was not subject to the rules concerning warranties of merchantability. An analogous argument could made that Chins drywall would satisfy the Court's test in Keck , and would therefore not be classified as either a “product” or a “good.”Of particular interest to the default servicing industry is whether a builder or installer would be potentially held liable on a negligence theory for the installation of Chinese drywall. This could be a key difference between Chinese drywall and EIFS litigation. The negligence theories against builders and installers in EIFS often revolved around arguments that the system was improperly installed, and that installation led to problems with moisture intrusion, termites, and other resulting problems. In contrast, the issues concerning Chins drywall are based upon the problems with the product itself, not the installation.. Note that generally, a builder is not liable for latent defects in building materials that are used and “he is not liable to the owner for the latent defect or liable for the amount of damage to the building caused by such defect.” 13 Am. Jur. 2d, Building and Construction Contracts § 27 (1997); Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., 235 So.2d 548 (Fla. Ct. App.1970). Unless a building owner is able to show that the builder or installer had knowledge of the problems associated with Chinese drywall, he or she may have problems with holding those entities accountable.
Civil LitigationGovernment and regulatory actions are occurring that may pave the way for a wave of civil lawsuits by or on behalf of homeowners affected by Chinese drywall. Florida Senators Mary Landrieu, D-La. and Bill Nelson, D-Fla, continue to voice concerns regarding Chinese drywall at the federal level. Both state and Federal agencies have been investigating the drywall itself. Procedures for developing interior air quality tests for the presence or impact of Chins drywall are reportedly being developed by a number of federal agenciesNew Orleans Times-Picayune reported on June 7, 2009 that Sen. Landrieu’s staff said that the federal tests could lay the groundwork for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to bring a civil action against the drywall manufacturers. Stephen Mysliwiec, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, observed that it will not become clear who is liable for the defective product until consensus emerges on the precise cause of the problems. He noted that, one theory ventures that gypsum mined in China contains excessive sulfur, while another ventures that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal, was used during the manufacturing process. "Until the science of what is causing the problem is settled, it is very difficult to know which party is going to be held liable for the cost of making repairs," Mysliwiec said. On June 15, 2009, a panel of federal judges ruled that lawsuits filed around the country against home builders, suppliers and manufacturers of Chinese drywall will be moved to New Orleans, where U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon will preside over discovery and pre-trial hearings. By transferring all of the cases to federal court in New Orleans, the judicial panel is trying to ensure that lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defense would not have to duplicate their efforts in multiple courts during discovery. Of equal importance, the panel seeks to prevent judges in different districts from handing down inconsistent rulings.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/chinese_drywall_lawsuits_to_be.html.
A legal conference on Chinese drywall, closed to the public, took place in New Orleans on June 18, 2009. The conference presented by HB Litigation Conferences is designed for representatives of homeowners, builders, insurance companies and government agencies.
http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2009/06/new_orleans_hosts_legal_confer.html
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
We have seen this to date from the perspective of increasing claims being made, both state and federal regulators seeking ways to regulate, protect consumers and also determine responsibility and liability for the damages caused by Chinese drywall. Concurrently, the first lawsuits regarding insurance coverage for these claims are starting to move through the courts. Following is a discussion of the issue from that perspective.
Homeowner's PoliciesIn March 2009, Baker v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 09-cv-188 was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Baker is the first complaint regarding homeowner’s insurance for drywall claims. In the Baker case, two Florida policyholders sued their homeowners’ insurer, seeking coverage for property damage resulting from Chinese drywall in their home. The Complaint filed was rather plain. with the policyholders alleging that they notified their insurer of a loss in December 2008 caused from the gases emitted by drywall. The Complaint alleges further that the insurer verbally denied the claim based on “contamination,” but that no formal declination has been issued. In its answer, the insurer denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for pollution, wear and tear, and faulty materials. The insurer also answered that the claim fell outside the policy period. Apparently, the insurer is trying to base some of its reasoning for denial of coverage that the damage occurred at the time the drywall was installed, not the time it began to emit noxious odors. Commercial General Liability PoliciesInsurance disputes concerning contractors' Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policies are also pending. In April 2009, it was reported that Lennar Corporation, one of the principal defendants in Florida’s Chinese drywall litigation, stated that it believed that its insurance would cover the drywall claims. There has been no comment from the insurer. However, the insurer of another homebuilder commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia, Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. Dragas Management Corporation, 2:09-cv-185. Builders Mutual is seeking a declaration that it did not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for Chinese drywall based on the pollution exclusion and the work-product exclusions.
The Component Not Product ArgumentInsurance industry experts are watching the Chinese drywall suits and comparing them to past litigation involving EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finishing Systems), a building product that provides exterior walls with an insulated finished surface, and waterproofing in an integrated composite material system. The analogy between Chins Drywall and EIFS is that both products are components incorporated into a structure, and as such were intended to have the same useful life of the structure. In Keck v Dryvit Systems, Inc., 830 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2002), the Alabama Supreme Court held that such components are not “products” within the meaning of the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), stating:
The owner of a house or of any building should reasonably expect that many components will have the same useful life as the house or building itself and will not need to be replaced over the life of the building. Such components include, by way of example, an exterior brick wall, a staircase, or a fireplace. There are also certain components of a house or a building the purchaser reasonably expects to wear out and to require replacement in the course of normal and ordinary usage, such as roof shingles, a dishwasher, a furnace, or a hot-water heater. Whether an item that is incorporated into real property may be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD is determined by whether the item is a part of the structural integrity of the house or building that is reasonably expected to last for the useful life of the house or building. If it is, then the item cannot be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD. However, if the item is attached or incorporated into real property and, yet its very function and nature clearly makes it an item that one would reasonably expect to repair or to replace during the useful life of the realty, the item may be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD. For instance, although paint, when applied to the structure of a wall, becomes incorporated into the surface of the wall, paint is a structural improvement that does not have the same useful life as the wall itself or the building to which the wall is attached; one would expect to have to repaint a wall to maintain the quality of the first application. Therefore, paint would be considered a product for purposes of the AEMLD.The Keck Court held that EIFS was intended to last for the useful life of the structure, and was not subject to the AEMLD. Further, the Court also held that it was not a “good” under the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore was not subject to the rules concerning warranties of merchantability. An analogous argument could made that Chins drywall would satisfy the Court's test in Keck , and would therefore not be classified as either a “product” or a “good.”Of particular interest to the default servicing industry is whether a builder or installer would be potentially held liable on a negligence theory for the installation of Chinese drywall. This could be a key difference between Chinese drywall and EIFS litigation. The negligence theories against builders and installers in EIFS often revolved around arguments that the system was improperly installed, and that installation led to problems with moisture intrusion, termites, and other resulting problems. In contrast, the issues concerning Chins drywall are based upon the problems with the product itself, not the installation.. Note that generally, a builder is not liable for latent defects in building materials that are used and “he is not liable to the owner for the latent defect or liable for the amount of damage to the building caused by such defect.” 13 Am. Jur. 2d, Building and Construction Contracts § 27 (1997); Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., 235 So.2d 548 (Fla. Ct. App.1970). Unless a building owner is able to show that the builder or installer had knowledge of the problems associated with Chinese drywall, he or she may have problems with holding those entities accountable.
Civil LitigationGovernment and regulatory actions are occurring that may pave the way for a wave of civil lawsuits by or on behalf of homeowners affected by Chinese drywall. Florida Senators Mary Landrieu, D-La. and Bill Nelson, D-Fla, continue to voice concerns regarding Chinese drywall at the federal level. Both state and Federal agencies have been investigating the drywall itself. Procedures for developing interior air quality tests for the presence or impact of Chins drywall are reportedly being developed by a number of federal agenciesNew Orleans Times-Picayune reported on June 7, 2009 that Sen. Landrieu’s staff said that the federal tests could lay the groundwork for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to bring a civil action against the drywall manufacturers. Stephen Mysliwiec, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, observed that it will not become clear who is liable for the defective product until consensus emerges on the precise cause of the problems. He noted that, one theory ventures that gypsum mined in China contains excessive sulfur, while another ventures that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal, was used during the manufacturing process. "Until the science of what is causing the problem is settled, it is very difficult to know which party is going to be held liable for the cost of making repairs," Mysliwiec said. On June 15, 2009, a panel of federal judges ruled that lawsuits filed around the country against home builders, suppliers and manufacturers of Chinese drywall will be moved to New Orleans, where U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon will preside over discovery and pre-trial hearings. By transferring all of the cases to federal court in New Orleans, the judicial panel is trying to ensure that lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defense would not have to duplicate their efforts in multiple courts during discovery. Of equal importance, the panel seeks to prevent judges in different districts from handing down inconsistent rulings.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/chinese_drywall_lawsuits_to_be.html.
A legal conference on Chinese drywall, closed to the public, took place in New Orleans on June 18, 2009. The conference presented by HB Litigation Conferences is designed for representatives of homeowners, builders, insurance companies and government agencies.
http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2009/06/new_orleans_hosts_legal_confer.html
Friday, April 17, 2009
Freddie Mac has issued the following Single Family Seller/Servicer Guide Update
Freddie Mac has issued the following Single Family Seller/Servicer Guide Update regarding Bulletin 2009-9.
Today’s Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2009-9, expands eligibility for the Freddie Mac Relief Refinance MortgageSM, making it easier for qualified borrowers to take advantage of this offering. Relief Refinance Mortgages are a key component of the administration’s Making Home Affordable Program and we are committed to supporting this national mandate by making Relief Refinance Mortgages available to as many qualified borrowers as possible. Today’s expanded eligibility will allow you to help more borrowers refinance into mortgages that position them for a successful and long-term homeownership experience.
With today’s Guide Bulletin, we are incorporating into the Guide the recently announced increase to our maximum loan limits as permitted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). We are also announcing revisions to our requirements for super conforming mortgages that include the changes we previewed in our April 10 Single-Family Advisory e-mail.
It is important that you review today’s Guide Bulletin for detailed information on these changes.
Expanded Eligibility for Relief Refinance Mortgages
Today’s Guide Bulletin provides detailed information on updates to our requirements for Relief Refinance Mortgages. The following changes are effective immediately and include:
Clarifying that accrued interest through the payoff date may be included when paying off the mortgage being refinanced.
Permitting up to $250 cash back to the borrower.
Enabling the amortization term of the Relief Refinance Mortgage to be longer than the amortization term of the existing mortgage. For example, a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage may be refinanced as a 30-year fixed-rate Relief Refinance Mortgage.
Allowing second home and investment property mortgages that are now owner-occupied primary residences to be refinanced under the Relief Refinance Mortgage offering.
Permitting the transfer of property insurance from the mortgage being refinanced to the Relief Refinance Mortgage, if permitted by the insurance carrier, to alleviate the need for the borrower to prepay property insurance at settlement.
Additionally, when using Home Value Explorer® to determine property value, we are not requiring you to complete the “Year Built” and “Number of Bedrooms” fields on Form 11, Mortgage Submission Schedule and Form 13SF, Mortgage Submission Voucher.
Finally, we are reminding you that Relief Refinance Mortgages may not be sold to Freddie Mac through the selling system’s servicing-released process.
To view the online Bulletin in its entirety, please http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletins/pdf/bll099.pdf
Today’s Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide (Guide) Bulletin 2009-9, expands eligibility for the Freddie Mac Relief Refinance MortgageSM, making it easier for qualified borrowers to take advantage of this offering. Relief Refinance Mortgages are a key component of the administration’s Making Home Affordable Program and we are committed to supporting this national mandate by making Relief Refinance Mortgages available to as many qualified borrowers as possible. Today’s expanded eligibility will allow you to help more borrowers refinance into mortgages that position them for a successful and long-term homeownership experience.
With today’s Guide Bulletin, we are incorporating into the Guide the recently announced increase to our maximum loan limits as permitted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). We are also announcing revisions to our requirements for super conforming mortgages that include the changes we previewed in our April 10 Single-Family Advisory e-mail.
It is important that you review today’s Guide Bulletin for detailed information on these changes.
Expanded Eligibility for Relief Refinance Mortgages
Today’s Guide Bulletin provides detailed information on updates to our requirements for Relief Refinance Mortgages. The following changes are effective immediately and include:
Clarifying that accrued interest through the payoff date may be included when paying off the mortgage being refinanced.
Permitting up to $250 cash back to the borrower.
Enabling the amortization term of the Relief Refinance Mortgage to be longer than the amortization term of the existing mortgage. For example, a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage may be refinanced as a 30-year fixed-rate Relief Refinance Mortgage.
Allowing second home and investment property mortgages that are now owner-occupied primary residences to be refinanced under the Relief Refinance Mortgage offering.
Permitting the transfer of property insurance from the mortgage being refinanced to the Relief Refinance Mortgage, if permitted by the insurance carrier, to alleviate the need for the borrower to prepay property insurance at settlement.
Additionally, when using Home Value Explorer® to determine property value, we are not requiring you to complete the “Year Built” and “Number of Bedrooms” fields on Form 11, Mortgage Submission Schedule and Form 13SF, Mortgage Submission Voucher.
Finally, we are reminding you that Relief Refinance Mortgages may not be sold to Freddie Mac through the selling system’s servicing-released process.
To view the online Bulletin in its entirety, please http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletins/pdf/bll099.pdf
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Financially Stressed Taxpayers
California taxpayers facing income tax troubles are encouraged to contact the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB). An FTB specialist can review accounts and explain available programs that offer assistance. The FTB generally can grant relief from state tax liens within two weeks for financially distressed homeowners trying to sell or refinance their homes. When a home sells for less than the loan balance, FTB sometimes can remove its tax lien from the property to allow the homeowner to complete the sale. Tax liens typically must be paid before a real estate escrow can close. The tax lien remains in effect on any other property the taxpayer currently holds or later acquires.FTB also can help individuals who are refinancing or modifying an existing home loan if homeowners request that the new or modified loan have priority over the tax lien. This allows prior home loans to be refinanced or modified without first having to pay the lien.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
