1.  Only purchase money loans on qualifying residential property get anti-deficiency protection in Arizona.  This is not necessarily true.  If the holder of a mortgage secured by a single 1 or 2 family dwelling on 2.5 acres or less forecloses via a trustee’s sale, that lender will be barred from seeking a deficiency pursuant to A.R.S. 33-814(G).  However, rights of junior lien holders and the right of a lender to waive its rights under a Deed of Trust and sue a borrower on its note must be analyzed under a different context.

2.  A borrower must have occupied its residential property as its primary residence to get anti-deficiency protection.  This is simply not true.  Although a recent amendment to A.R.S. 33-814(G) intended to impose a requirement for the borrower to have lived in the property, this law was subsequently repealed such that it never took effect.  In Arizona, the anti-deficiency statutes have always been interpreted to only require that a qualifying residential property have been put to use as a dwelling by someone, not necessarily the actual borrower.

3.  Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes don’t apply to short sales because a short sale is not a foreclosure.  This statement entirely disregards established Arizona precedent.  It is true that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes are contained within the judicial and non-judicial foreclosure statutes and that a short sale is not a foreclosure.  However, several Arizona cases interpreting Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes provide clear and established precedent restricting a lender’s right to sue a borrower where Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws would apply to a lender in a foreclosure context.  In short, if a lender makes (or holds) a purchase money loan on qualifying residential property, that lender’s rights to sue a borrower for lack of payment on the note are severely restricted, if not altogether prohibited.

4.  A short sale will always be better for a borrower’s credit.  Although I am not a credit counselor and do not profess to understand all the ins and outs of how a credit score is calculated (does anyone?), in most cases, a lender will require a borrower to be delinquent before contemplating a short sale.  As a result, a borrower’s credit is almost certainly to be hurt before the short sale is consummated, and once it is, the reporting of the sale as a short sale will generally damage one’s credit even further.  However, a potential benefit of a short sale is the ability (in concept) to qualify for certain loans sooner versus having a foreclosure on one’s record.

Marc McCain, Esq.

McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law

www.mccainbursh.com.

mmccain@mblawaz.com

(602) 604-2138

With respect to issue #1 – deficiencies, short sales present interesting issues and possible outcomes.  Arizona has two anti-deficiency statutes that act to prevent a lender from collecting on a deficiency following a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure on certain residential property situated on 2.5 acres or less.  Because these statutes deal with foreclosures, many real estate professionals, including attorneys, take the position that Arizona’s anti-deficiencies have no application to short sales.  This is categorically false.  Either these real estate professionals do not understand the law, or they are trying to create confusion to help attract clients for their services.  While a short sale can result in a deficiency situation where a foreclosure on the same property would not (for instance, without a lender’s agreement to not seek a deficiency, a short sale involving a non-purchase money loan on qualifying property will not extinguish a borrower’s liability for a deficiency, while a foreclosure by the same lender at a non-judicial trustee’s sale will result in the lender being barred from seeking a deficiency), for many loans (specifically, purchase money loans on qualifying property), a short sale should never result in a deficiency for a borrower.

Notwithstanding Arizona’s relatively broad anti-deficiency protections afforded to purchase money loans on qualifying property, lenders continue to misrepresent their rights and borrowers’ liabilities in short sale transactions.  Lenders continue to demand cash contributions from borrowers to approve short sales even though they would have no right to seek a deficiency if they foreclosed on the property.  Borrowers and their real estate agents should never engage in short sale negotiations without knowing exactly what rights and obligations a lender and borrower have under the loan and any particular workout scenario.

For a more detailed analysis of Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and their applicability to short sale transactions, see my letter to the Editor of Maricopa Lawyer attached.

letter-to-the-editor-of-maricopa-lawyer

Marc McCain, Attorney at Law

McCain & Bursh, PLC

www.mccainbursh.com

mmccain@mblawaz.com

(602) 604-2138

2.  Always ask for the lender’s express release of liability as a condition to the short sale – even if your loan(s) would be covered by Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws.  The short sale proceeds should be taken by the lender as full satisfaction of all indebtedness under the loan(s).  Attempt to get this in writing from each lender.  If the lender is unwilling to provide such an express release, understand what liability you may have as a borrower following the short sale before you agree to the sale.  In some cases, Arizona law prohibits a lender from waiving its security and suing a borrower on its note.  As a result, if a lender in such a case releases its security in a short sale, Arizona law should prevent the lender from seeking any recourse against the borrower following the short sale.     

3.  Understand the process and information the lender will require for a short sale before starting the process.  Nearly all lenders require a borrower to submit current financial information – bank statements, tax returns, W-2’s, company profit and loss statements, etc.  In addition, lenders typically require a borrower to establish a hardship as a condition to approving a short sale.  What constitutes a hardship can vary from lender to lender, and how a borrower portrays the hardship can make a difference.  If a borrower may be liable for a deficiency following a short sale, that borrower may want to think twice about providing a lender with a snapshot of its current financial condition.  Since a borrower must accurately disclose its income and financial condition, doing so may provide a lender the information it needs to ask for a larger contribution and/or pursue its deficiency rights following a short sale.

4.  Use a skilled, experienced negotiator to process your short sale.  The short sale process can be lengthy, time consuming and frustrating.  Without help from an experienced real estate agent or attorney, the process can be overwhelming for many borrowers.  Despite the difficulties, if a short sale is right for you, don’t give up if met with initial resistance or delay from your lender and don’t necessarily blame your negotiator.  Even the best real estate agents and attorneys run into unreasonable lenders and their legion of inexperienced and uncaring loss mitigation representatives. 

5.  Know what you are agreeing to in the short sale process and approval.  The standard ARR Short Sale Listing Agreement and Short Sale Addendum require a seller to provide all information requested by a lender in the short sale application process.  For reasons noted above, some borrowers may not want to agree up front to provide all information a lender requests.  Moreover, the Short Sale Addendum requires the seller to work in earnest to get the short sale approved.  As a result, a seller should not enter into a short sale contract unless it truly intends on seeking its lender’s approval and consummating the sale.

6.  Read and understand your lender’s approval terms.  Most lenders require a seller to sign and return the short sale approval or agreement.  The approval conditions and agreements used by lenders vary widely.  Some lenders are silent on deficiency issues, others attempt to get borrowers to agree that they will be liable for a deficiency following a short sale, even in instances where such an agreement is contrary to Arizona law and its anti-deficiency provisions.  Some approvals require a borrower to sign an unsecured promissory note.  Whatever the conditions, a borrower must understand what potential obligations and liabilities it is taking on in the lender’s short sale agreement and related documents.

7.  Stay apprised of changes in the law and short sale programs.  Commencing on April, 5 2010, the Federal Government’s Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives program will implement changes to short sale and deed in lieu workouts for participating lenders and loans.  Among the many requirements of the program, a lender will not be able to seek a deficiency following a qualifying short sale or deed in lieu.

8.  Understand what tax liabilities may result from a short sale.  If a deficiency is not permitted or if a lender writes off any loss on a short sale, the lender should issue a 1099 C to the borrower to report the amount of the cancelled debt.  Unless the borrower falls under a recognized exception to cancellation of debt income, a borrower must recognize the income and pay and associated tax liability.  A prudent borrower will always understand the probable tax impact of a short sale (or other workout) before the transaction is consummated.

Marc McCain

McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law

www.mccainbursh.com

(602) 604-2138

With the foregoing as a backdrop, set forth below are the general anti-deficiency rules applicable in Arizona now that Senate Bill 1004 has taken effect.  However, borrowers must understand these are only general rules — every situation must be analyzed carefully based on the relevant facts and applicable law.   And remember, the law can and may change! 

1.  In Arizona, if a borrower fails to pay its loan, a lender can foreclose its Deed of Trust lien either judicially per A.R.S. § 33-721 et. seq., or non-judicially by conducting a trustee’s sale per A.R.S. § 33-801 et. seq. 

2.  If the foreclosure sale price does not pay a lender what it is owed, the lender may generally seek a deficiency against the borrower for the balance of the loan.  However, Arizona has what is called an anti-deficiency law that bars a lender from seeking a deficiency in certain situations.  The anti-deficiency laws with respect to real property loans in Arizona are found in 2 places – in A.R.S.  § 33-729(A) (regarding judicial foreclosures), and A.R.S. § 33-814(G) (regarding trustee’s sales).  

3.  In determining if Arizona’s anti-deficiency rules apply, the first step is to confirm what law applies to the loan, particularly the lender’s remedies under the Promissory Note.  The applicable law should NOT be assumed.  Read your Promissory Note and other loan documents carefully and understand their terms and what law will most likely apply to the lender’s rights under the Promissory Note.

4.  Assuming Arizona law applies to the lender’s rights under the note, in both judicial foreclosures and trustee’s sales in Arizona, anti-deficiency rules apply only if the property being foreclosed meets the following criteria:  (a) 2½ acres or less; and (b) limited to and utilized as a single one-family or single two-family dwelling. 

5.  For judicial foreclosures under A.R.S. § 33-729(A), there is the additional requirement that the loan be a purchase money (“PM”) loan for the borrower to get anti-deficiency treatment. 

6.  However, the trustee’s sale statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(G), does NOT require that the loan be a PM loan. 

7.  Special rule regarding purchase money loans:  a PM loan does NOT lose its PM nature when it is refinanced.  However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues.

8.  In judicial foreclosures, if the loan on qualifying residential property is a non-purchase money (“NPM”) loan, then the lender is not prevented from seeking a deficiency following a foreclosure or from suing borrower on the note.  Only lenders that made PM loans on qualifying residential property are prevented from seeking a deficiency or suing the borrower on the note.  However, for several reasons, judicial foreclosures on residential property in Arizona are relatively rare — most lenders foreclosure via a trustee’s sale.

 9.  In a trustee’s sale, both a PM and NPM lender that conducts the trustee’s sale on qualifying property will be prevented from seeking a deficiency after the foreclosure and from suing the borrower directly on the note. 

 10.  Junior liens extinguished by a 1st position foreclosure may be able to sue on the note.  The issue is whether the junior loan was a PM or NPM loan – if it was a PM loan on qualifying property, the lender can NOT sue the borrower on the note following the foreclosure; if it was a NPM loan, the lender CAN sue the borrower.

11.  Arizona’s Supreme Court has ruled that a PM lender on qualifying property can NOT waive its security and sue directly on its note.  This rule should prevent a PM lender on qualifying property from suing a borrower on the note before or after a foreclosure or after a short sale.  However, other Lender claims are not barred – e.g. voluntary waste of the property.  Moreover, many lenders are ignoring Arizona law in collection efforts and short sale approvals and negotiations. 

12.  Under the trustee’s sale statute, there is NO requirement that the trustor use the property as a dwelling – just that the property be used by someone as a dwelling.  Thus, in most cases, residential investment or rental properties qualify for anti-deficiency treatment, even if they are not owner occupied properties. 

13.  However, Arizona’s Supreme Court has held that commercial properties and loans secured by residential homes being developed for sale but never utilized as dwellings do NOT qualify for anti-deficiency treatment under the statutes. 

14.  In addition, Arizona’s courts have ruled that a deed of trust that is a lien against more than one property will not be subject to anti-deficiency rules — the deed of trust needs to be a lien against a single trust property. 

15.  Even if anti-deficiency rules apply, a borrower will be liable to a lender for any diminution in value of the trust property due to voluntary waste.  In other words, don’t damage the property, take fixtures, A/C units, etc., or let the property go to waste.

16.  Real property taxes are NOT an owner’s personal obligation, but only a lien against the real property. 

17.  However, HOA assessments ARE an owner’s personal obligation and if not paid can result in credit damage, lawsuits and other collection efforts.

18.  Arizona’s rules governing foreclosures and deficiency issues may apply to short sales, but a borrower must understand the law and its loan and realize that the outcome can be different in a short sale vs. a foreclosure, e.g., a short sale on a NPM loan will generally permit a lender to collect the balance due on its note whereas a trustee’s sale on the same loan will prevent the lender from seeking a deficiency. Short sales also present the parties with the chance to negotiate terms of the short sale and deficiency issues.

19.  Consult with qualified tax professionals BEFORE deciding to do a short sale or foreclosure.  1099 income, gains, losses and other tax consequences may result from foreclosures, short sales and loan modifications.  Know what tax consequences you will face!

You can read the bill at the following link:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/4s/bills/sb1004s.pdf

The real estate industry and bankers are intending to continue work on an amendment to the law that would carve out certain speculative builders from anti-deficiency protections, but otherwise would leave existing protections in place.   

Marc McCain, Esq.

McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law

www.mccainbursh.com

What is needed in Arizona is a law that would prohibit lenders from receiving funds in a short sale (over the short sale net proceeds) that would not be permitted by our anti-deficiency statutes and our Courts’ interpretation of the law.  Nothing short of a statutory restriction against the type of lender abuses we are seeing will work — we’ve already seen the debacle of the Federal Governments’ loan mod and refinance program.   The support for such a bill would be tremendous, the question is whether any groups have the time and money to marshall the effort needed to raise the issue with our legislature and get it through the political process quickly enough to make a difference in this market . . . 

In Arizona, certain loans on residential real property are subject to what are called anti-deficiency laws.  These laws limit a borrower’s liability to its lender if certain requirements are met.  However, there are many misconceptions about Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws, when they apply, and whey they don’t.  Moreover, Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws have been in recent flux, increasing the confusion in the market and borrowers’ anxiety as they try to navigate a very difficult and stressful situation.  The recent changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws were the result of Arizona Senate Bill 1271 which took effect on September 30, 2009 (for an understanding of the additional requirements imposed under Senate Bill 1271, effective since September 30, 2009 and until HB 2008 takes effect, see prior blog posts at www.marcmccain.com or contact the author). 

However, Arizona House Bill 2008 was recently passed and signed by Governor Brewer and is slated to become law in late November, 2009.  HB 2008 contained a repeal of the changes to the anti-deficiency law made by Senate Bill 1271 and included a clause that made the repeal retroactive to September 29, 2009.  Thus, local practitioners have been operating under the premise that HB 2008 will be applied retroactively as written and that the requirements implemented by SB 1271 will never by applied in practice.  However, the banks have now sued Governor Brewer to stop the repeal of SB 1271 from taking effect, or at least to increase their leverage in introducing new legislation that would limit the broad application of Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws.  

With the foregoing as a backdrop, set forth below are the general anti-deficiency rules applicable in Arizona once HB 2008 takes effect later this month (assuming that is the case).   If banks are successful in keeping SB 1271 on the books, a borrower must understand how the changes made by SB 1271 affect their situation.  Moreover, if your foreclosure or workout falls within the “window period” of September 30, 2009 until the date HB 2008 and its change to the anti-deficiency law takes effect, you should consider the additional risks related to your foreclosure or workout given the potential application of SB 1271.  However, borrowers must understand these are only general rules — every situation must be analyzed carefully based on the relevant facts and applicable law.   And remember, the law can and may change! 

1.  In Arizona, if a borrower fails to pay its loan, a lender can foreclose its Deed of Trust lien either judicially per A.R.S. § 33-721 et. seq., or non-judicially by conducting a trustee’s sale per A.R.S. § 33-801 et. seq. 

2.  If the foreclosure does not pay a lender what it is owed, the lender may generally seek a deficiency against the borrower for balance of the loan.  However, certain states, including Arizona, have what are called anti-deficiency laws that bar a lender from seeking a deficiency in certain situations. 

3.  In determining if anti-deficiency rules apply, the first step is to confirm what law applies to the loan, particularly the lender’s remedies under the Promissory Note.  The applicable law should NOT be assumed.  Read your Promissory Note and other loan documents carefully and understand their terms.

4.  Assuming Arizona law applies to the lender’s rights under the Promissory Note, Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws are found in 2 places – in A.R.S. § 33-729(A) (regarding judicial foreclosures), and A.R.S. § 33-814(G) (regarding trustee’s sales).  

5.  In both judicial foreclosures and trustee’s sales, anti-deficiency rules apply only if the property being foreclosed meets the following criteria:  (a) 2½ acres or less; and (b) limited to and utilized as a single one-family or single two-family dwelling.  NOTE:  SB 1271 made changes to A.R.S. § 33-814(G) AND THESE CHANGES ARE NOT SET FORTH IN THIS SUMMARY IN DETAIL.  HOWEVER, SB 1271 IS TECHNICALLY THE LAW UNTIL HB 2008 TAKES EFFECT.  Any borrower should understand the changes to A.R.S. § 33-814(G) made by SB 1271 and the status of HB 2008 before agreeing to any workout or foreclosure.

6.  For judicial foreclosures under A.R.S. § 33-729(A), there is the additional requirement that the loan be a purchase money (“PM”) loan for the borrower to get anti-deficiency treatment.  However, the trustee’s sale statute, A.R.S. § 33-

continued…

814(G), does NOT require that the loan be a PM loan.  A PM loan does NOT lose its PM nature when it is refinanced.  However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues.

7.  In judicial foreclosures, only a PM lender on qualifying residential property is prevented from seeking a deficiency; a non-purchase money (“NPM”) lender is not – it can obtain a deficiency following a foreclosure or sue the borrower on the note.  For several reasons, judicial foreclosures on residential property in Arizona are relatively rare — most lenders foreclosure via a trustee’s sale.

8.  In a trustee’s sale, both a PM and NPM lender that conducts the trustee’s sale on qualifying property will be prevented from seeking a deficiency after the foreclosure and from suing the borrower directly on the note. 

 9.  Junior liens extinguished by a 1st position foreclosure may be able to sue on the note.  The issue is whether the junior loan was a PM or NPM loan – if it was a PM loan on qualifying property, the lender can NOT sue the borrower on the note following the foreclosure; if it was a NPM loan, the lender CAN sue the borrower.

10.  If a lender can not seek a deficiency, then the lender can NOT waive its security and sue directly on its note.  This means that a lender under a PM loan on qualifying property will NOT be able to sue the borrower on the note – before or after the foreclosure.  This rule also applies to short sales. However, other Lender claims are not barred – e.g. mortgage fraud.

11.  Under the trustee’s sale statute (WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANGES MADE BY SB 1271), there is NO requirement that the trustor use the property as a dwelling – just that the property be used by someone as a dwelling.  Thus, in most cases, residential investment or rental properties qualify for anti-deficiency treatment, even if they are not owner occupied properties.  HOWEVER, IF SB 1271 IS APPLIED, THE BORROWER MUST ESTABLISH THAT IT, THE BORROWER, UTILIZED THE PROPERTY AS ITS DWELLING FOR AT LEAST 6 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS.  THIS COULD MEAN THAT CERTAIN INVESTMENT OR RENTAL PROPERTIES MAY NOT QUALIFY FOR ANTI-DEFICIENCY TREATMENT).

12.  However, Arizona’s Supreme Court has held that commercial properties and loans secured by residential homes being developed for sale but never utilized as dwellings do NOT qualify for anti-deficiency treatment under the statutes. 

13.  In addition, Arizona’s courts have ruled that a deed of trust that is a lien against more than one property will not be subject to anti-deficiency rules — the deed of trust needs to be a lien against a single trust property. 

14.  Even if anti-deficiency rules apply, a borrower will be liable to a lender for any diminution in value of the trust property due to voluntary waste.  In other words, don’t damage the property, take fixtures, A/C units, etc., or let the Property go to waste.

15.  Real property taxes are NOT an owner’s personal obligation, but only a lien against the real property. 

16.  However, HOA assessments ARE an owner’s personal obligation and if not paid can result in credit damage, lawsuits and other collection efforts.

17.  Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes and the cases interpreting them generally apply to short sales, but with some nuances.  Borrowers must be careful when analyzing short sales and their potential liability after the sale.  In some cases, a short sale will permit a lender to collect the balance due on its note whereas a foreclosure on the same property may bar a lender from seeking a deficiency.

18.  Consult with qualified tax professionals BEFORE deciding to do a short sale or foreclosure.  1099 income, gains, losses and other tax consequences may result from foreclosures, short sales and loan modifications.  Know what tax consequences you will face!

McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law

(602) 604-2138

www.mccainbursh.com

www.marcmccain.com

However, House Bill 2008, recently passed by our legislature and signed by Gov. Brewer, repeals Senate Bill 1271 and the repeal is retroactive to September 29, 2009, the day before Senate Bill 1271 became law.  Thus, the legal community has been operating under the premise that, although Senate Bill 1271 is technically the law from September 30, 2009 until the date HB 2008 takes effect, it will never be applied since HB 2008 makes the repeal retroactive to September 29, 2009 as though A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) were never changed.  Now that the banks have sued the Governor, this premise, and the outcome of this power struggle, is in doubt.

The expectation from many in the legal community is that HB 2008 will take effect as scheduled on or about November 24, 2009 (90 days after teh end of the last special legislative session), and thus, Senate Bill 1271 will be repealed and A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) will be applied by courts as though it never changed.  However, the repeal could be only temporary.  Banking lobbyists are hard at work at the State Capitol trying to push a version of Senate Bill 1271 down the proverbial throats of our Governor and Legislators, with the pending lawsuit serving as leverage for their demands.

Given the uncertainty surrounding this very important issue of State law, I urge all of my clients and industry professionals to stay apprised of current developments and understand that the law in this area is in flux.  What was “existing” or “current” law yesterday or today may not be the same tomorrow or next week, and how a court may interpret the mess created by this tug of war is anyone’s guess.  As a result, a careful review of the law and application to a specific situation is critical before finalizing any short sale or permitting a home to go to foreclosure.

Marc McCain, Esq.

McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys At Law

(602) 604-2138

www.mccain-bursh.com

www.marcmccain.com

Banks pushed SB 1271 through the legislature in a hurried fashion and presented inaccurate information to Arizona’s legislators.  In fact, virtually all assumptions and statements of existing  law and practice containted in the legislative summary for SB 1271 were WRONG (the summary is circulated to legislators and their staff to assist in considering the merits of a bill).  Of course, the errors created sympathy for the banks and their bill and it passed with ease.  When the local real estate community and consumers figured out what had happened, they were outraged.  The outrage was channeled into quick and effective lobbying of our legislators to repeal SB 1271 and its terribly drafted language and unfair ramifications to tens of thousands  of Arizona homeowners.

As part of Senator Pierce’s drive to repeal his  own bill, he expressed  a willingness  to raise the issues  related to SB 1271 in the next legislative session.  Apparently not satisfied with addressing this issue on an even playing field, with ACCURATE INFORMATION AND STATEMENTS OF  THE LAW as a backdrop to discussions, banks have now decided that paying thousands to attorneys and suing our Governor is the most productive way to move the ball forward.

While the dust settles on the lawsuit filing, perhaps banks can explain a few things to their Arizona customers (and no doubt, to hundreds of thousands of similarly situated customers in the United States):

1.  did banks play a role in the (unreasonable) run up of real estate prices and the current foreclosure crisis?

2.  did banks and their agents benefit in making questionable loans based on shoddy underwriting and overly optimistic appraisals — were they paid fees, points, commissions?

3.  are banks being transparent with their customers in addressing loan workouts — modifications,  short sales, deeds in lieu of foreclosure (remember, banks demand full disclosure of a borrower’s financial information to consider a workout — do the banks open their books to ANYONE including our Fed. Gov’t)?

4.  are banks approving workouts of distressed  loans/properties where it makes sense to both the bank AND THE BORROWER, or only when it is in the bank’s best interest to do so considering all of the behind the scenes deals at play that the borrrower has no idea are impacting its workout request (such as stimulus money, Gov’t guarantees or insurance of losses, private mortgage insurance, etc)?

5.  are banks willing to sacrifice their bottom lines NOW, to assist its borrowers avoid financial ruin (remember banks, today’s foreclosure victims and bankruptcy filers won’t be your customers tomorrow — they won’t have any money).

It is anyone’s guess how this will play out in the Court or Arizona’s legislative process.  One thing is for sure, the banks aren’t satisfied with playing within the established rules of Arizona anti-deficiency law.  When times are tuffest, banks want to change the rules in their favor, on top of the billions they have already received from US taxpayers.  Consumers are asking, where is my assistance, when will the banks work with me and do what  makes sense?  Unfortunately, unless our local and Federal governments stand up to the banks and their hired guns, consumers will continue to take it in the shorts and ask, where do we look for assistance?  

Marc McCain, Esq.

McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law

www.mccainbursh.com

(602) 604-2138

My suggestion to Arizona’s homeowners, realtors and lawmakers:  don’t let the banks push bad law and bad policy down your throat without taking them to task.  Write your legislators –  go to www.azleg.gov and make your voice known.  Write your local bank president and tell them where your dollars will go if they move forward with their fight on this issue. Ask them if they received TARP or other subsidies on certain loans.  Ask them if they are modifying bad loans or approving sensible short sale transactions.  Ask them if they played any role in the current real estate mess in Arizona?  Did they make money off risky loans based on shoddy underwriting standards?  Ask them what they are doing to get this economy moving again – are they lending based on sound standards, will they lend more if they get their way with Senate Bill 1271? 

Marc McCain, Esq.

McCain & Bursh, PLC

www.mccainbursh.com

(602) 604-2138