mccain and bursh
TRENDS IN ARIZONA SHORT SALES AND ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAW
I recently attended a seminar that provided very interesting insight into the minds of lenders and why they continue to press rights against borrowers in certain contexts. Below is a summary of issues that lenders and their counsel believe are unsettled in Arizona, despite the strong policies behind Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes as discussed in several reported Arizona cases:
1. Refinances of an original purchase money mortgage where no additional money is distributed to the borrower. Lenders are arguing that no Arizona case clearly addresses whether a refinance of a purchase money mortgage, especially from a new lender, retains its purchase money character. Lenders point to cases from other states that hold a loan loses its purchase money character when refinanced. Of course, even if a loan is non-purchase money, if the trust property is 2.5 acres or less, has been utilized as a dwelling and the lender actually conducts a trustee’s sale, then the lender will be barred from seeking a deficiency since the trustee’s sale statute does not require the loan to be purchase money in order for the borrower to get anti-deficiency treatment. However, for junior loans that are refi’s of prior purchase money loans, lenders could conceivably make this argument and sue a borrower under the Baker Court’s rational (i.e., if a loan is non-purchase money, the lender can sue the borrower on the note). From a borrower perspective, if Arizona courts were to accept this lender argument, consider the practical effect. Many borrowers took advantage of cheap loans over the past decade and refinanced their initial purchase money loans. If all of these borrowers were suddenly deemed to lose purchase money protection, the potential impact on Arizona consumers and the Arizona economy would be huge. Thousands of borrowers would suddenly be subject to potential lawsuits and deficiency actions. Moreover, given the Beauvais decision, coupled with the policy behind Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes and the reasoning in the Baker decision, I find it hard to believe an Arizona court would strip borrowers of purchase money protection in this context, although nothing is impossible. As I remind clients, anyone can be sued at any time, for any reason. For this reason, an amendment to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws would provide great clarity on this and other issues.
2. Short sales do not get anti-deficiency treatment since they are voluntary transactions that are not in the foreclosure context. Although consumer counsel like myself could not disagree more, if lenders want to make this argument in a court of law, they can, and a borrower must defend the lawsuit or face a possible default judgment. Moreover, litigation is costly, even if you have the better argument. So, if a lender were to sue a borrower for a deficiency following a short sale, a borrower must make a difficult decision as to how to spend its resources – fighting the lender, attempting to settle, or perhaps seeking bankruptcy protection. As a result, I will continue to stress that it is imperative to seek a lender’s express written waiver or release of any deficiency rights in a short sale. If a lender is unwilling to give such a release, then a borrower must carefully analyze its risks and whether it should go through with a short sale. Moreover, since a lender typically requires a borrower to submit financial information as part of the short sale process, a borrower must contemplate the risk of disclosing its assets to a lender and having that information used against it in subsequent collection efforts (whether after a short sale, or if a short sale is not consummated, in a deficiency action or suit on a note following a foreclosure).
3. Construction loans on residential lots can not get anti-deficiency protection (at least not under the judicial foreclosure statute) because the loan was not made on a single 1 or 2-family dwelling, even if the dwelling is subsequently constructed and utilized as a dwelling. Lenders may take the position that a construction loan for a new residence on 2.5 acres or less should not get anti-deficiency protection because the statutes should be interpreted to mean that the dwelling existed and was in use at the time the loan was made. This reasoning seems to runs contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in the Mid-Kansas case. Moreover, if a trustee’s sale is actually held, the clear statutory language of 33-814(G) should prevent the lender from seeking a deficiency where the 1 or 2-family dwelling is complete and has been utilized. However, if lenders want to push the issue, like noted above, they can, and a borrower will have to weigh its options and their respective costs and risks.
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. Every borrower and owner should consult independent legal counsel to review their situation and evaluate their risks and issues. Any opinions expressed herein are based on the author’s interpretation of existing law, anti-deficiency policies and practical experiences working in the area. However, the facts of each case can be different and different facts can result in different outcomes. Moreover, the law can change and courts will continue to shape the interpretation of statutes addressing these and related issues.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC
THE TRUTH ABOUT SHORT SALES AND DEFICENCIES IN ARIZONA
Rarely will a consumer find so much contradicting, confusing and downright incorrect information on a legal topic as they currently do when it comes to short sales and related issues. Rarely heard of just 2-3 years ago, short sales now make up a significant majority of current MLS listings in the metro Phoenix market and the trend doesn’t seem to be changing any time soon. Agents, consumers and other professionals are scrambling to get up to speed on the process, strategies and legal issues surrounding short sales. From a legal perspective, there are three (3) main issues I discuss with clients who may be considering a short sale (or other loan workout for that matter): (1) deficiency issues, (2) credit issues, and (3) cancellation of debt income issues.
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 not entirely true given several Court decisions that restrict a lender’s right to waive its security and sue on its note. 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 not result in a deficiency for a borrower. However, without a lender’s express waiver of its right to seek a deficiency, a Borrower must consider why it is attempting to do a short sale and if it is worth the risk that a lender and its counsel will try to sue for a deficiency based on what they may feel are unresolved issues in Arizona law.
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
(602) 604-2138
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. Every borrower and owner should consult independent legal counsel to review their situation and evaluate their risks and issues. Any opinions expressed herein are based on the author’s interpretation of existing law, anti-deficiency policies and practical experiences working in the area. However, the facts of each case can be different and different facts can result in different outcomes. Moreover, the law can change and courts will continue to shape the interpretation of statutes addressing these and related issues.
UPDATE ON ARIZONA’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAWS
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. Arizona Senate Bill 1271 was passed in the summer of 2009 and briefly became the law until repealed, most recently by Arizona Senate Bill 1004. As a result, Arizona anti-deficiency law will remain unchanged, at least for now. However, every borrower should consult with legal counsel to understand the nature of its loan and the lender’s ability to seek a deficiency after a foreclosure or short sale.
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 and lenders will continue to assert rights in situations where the law is not 100% clear!
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. Refinanced loans present interesting issues. Based on an Arizona Appellate Court case, a good argument exists that a PM loan should not lose its PM nature when it is refinanced. However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues and some lenders and their counsel argue that a refinance of a PM loan from a new lender should not be given purchase money protection, notwithstanding Arizona’s strong policies underlying its anti-deficiency laws. Remember, a lender can always challenge existing case law and even the policy behind Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes. Future changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and/or court decisions may provide additional guidance on refinanced purchase money loans and whether they retain their purchase money characteristic.
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 as part of the foreclosure. However, for several reasons, judicial foreclosures on residential property in Arizona are relatively rare — most lenders foreclose via a trustee’s sale. Moreover, if the loan is a NPM loan, a lender could elect to sue a borrower on the note and skip the foreclosure process altogether, or sue on the note, get a judgment and then proceed to foreclosure. Remember, only lenders that made PM loans on qualifying residential property are prevented from seeking a deficiency or suing the borrower on the note.
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.
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, Arizona’s Supreme Court has held that the lender can NOT sue the borrower on the note following the foreclosure; if the loan was a NPM loan, the junior lender CAN sue the borrower before or after the senior lender’s foreclosure.
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, although there are lenders and lender counsel arguing that short sales should not get anti-deficiency protections despite Arizona’s strong policies underlying these consumer protection laws. 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. A borrower would be wise to continue to maintain its property up until the day it is sold.
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!
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. Every borrower and owner should consult independent legal counsel to review their situation and evaluate their risks and issues. Any opinions expressed herein are based on the author’s interpretation of existing law, anti-deficiency policies and practical experiences working in the area. However, the facts of each case can be different and different facts can result in different outcomes. Moreover, the law can change and courts will continue to shape the interpretation of statutes addressing these and related issues.
UPDATE ON ARIZONA’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY STATUTE
The Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed into law on November 23, 2009, Senate Bill 1004 which returns Arizona’s trustee’s sale statute anti-deficiency clause to its form prior to passage of Senate Bill 1271. The Bill includes a retroactivity clause, making the change retroactive to September 30, 2009, the day SB 1271 had gone into effect, and a statement of legislative intent confirming that the intent of the change is to return the law to its status before SB 1271. The Bill also includes an emergency clause, meaning it goes into effect immediately (as opposed to there being a 90 day waiting period as there was with House Bill 2008).
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
LENDER’S IGNORING ARIZONA LAW IN SHORT SALES
More and more I am seeing lenders be aggressive and unreasonable in demanding money from borrowers during the short sale approval process. Lenders are doing this even where AZ law prohibits them from waiving their security and suing on the note (i.e. where the loan is a purchase money loan on qualifying residential property). As a result, I am stressing the need to be careful about agreeing to terms of a short sale that are not reasonable or contrary to Arizona law – read and understand your documents. Also understand that just because a lender may not have a right to sue on its note based on well settled AZ authority, they may try, whether out of ignorance, arrogance, aggressiveness, or who knows anymore.
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 . . .
BANKS NOT GIVING UP JUST YET ON AZ’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAWS
Investors and second home owners in Arizona should NOT rest easy on the heels of the legislature’s recent repeal of Senate Bill 1271. Recognizing bad law (SB 1271) and bad policy behind it, not to mention the certain backlash from consumers, one might have thought banks would take their defeat in stride and use their resources to work with borrowers to reduce Arizona’s unprecedented foreclosure rate. Unfortunately, the banking industry does not know how to take it lying down. Accordingly to Tom Farley, CEO of the AAR, local banking associations have rounded up a team of overpriced lawyers and have threatened to file a lawsuit challenging the repeal of Senate Bill 1271 unless they get their way with legislation that would change Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute(s) and the protections they bring to Arizona homeowners following a foreclosure or short sale.
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
(602) 604-2138
IMPACT OF REPEAL of ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1271
As most interested parties now know, Governor Brewer signed House Bill 2008 and with it becoming law in late November, 2009, swept away the recent changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws set to go into effect September 30, 2009. Residential property owners’ collective sigh of relief could be felt throughout the Valley. However, the victory parade could be short, as banking lobby will push hard to bring change to Arizona’s rather broad anti-deficiency statutes.
House Bill 2008, largely a budget bill, included the entire text of A.R.S. Section 33-814, Arizona’s statute addressing deficiency actions following a non-judicial foreclosure (called a trustee’s sale). The recent changes to subsection G, the anti-deficiency rule applicable to residential properties, were deleted entirely, leaving the language as it originally read before Senate Bill 1271 was signed by Gov. Brewer this summer. In addition, Sec. 47(B) of HB 2008 provides that the changes will apply retroactively to from and after September 29, 2009. Read the entire text of the statute on page 27-29 of HB 2008 — http://azgovernor.gov/DMS/upload/PR_090409_HB2008.pdf.
The Valley real estate market is abuzz with predictions about how the repeal of SB 1271 will impact its recovery. One thought is that foreclosures will soar as many lenders who suspended foreclosures in anticipation of SB 1271 taking effect (and being able to sue borrowers for a deficiency – largely non-owner occupied residential owners who would not have satisfied the new anti-deficiency requirements) now proceed with their pending trustee’s sales.
Another thought is that many lenders will be forced to consider alternatives to foreclosure including short sales and modifications. Given the severity of deficiencies on many under water residences in Arizona, lenders facing non-recourse loans may think twice about foreclosure. Short sales typically result in a sales price 20% or higher than what a lender would realize in a foreclosure or REO sale (PMI considerations aside). Without the prospect of recovering a deficiency following a short sale or foreclosure, it only makes sense that lenders entertain short sales.
Others think that deeds in lieu of foreclosure may increase as lenders try to reduce costs of retaking title to a severly underwater property.
Whatever the outcome, owners of residential real estate in Arizona can sleep easier knowing the deficiency rules in place for several decades will remain in place — at least for now.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
STATUS OF REPEAL OF ARIZONA SENATE BILL 127
Gov. Brewer signed and transmitted House Bill 2008 which includes a repeal of Senate Bill 1271, the recent change to Arizona’s anti-deficiency law contained in ARS Section 33-814(G) governing trustee’s sales. http://azgovernor.gov/DMS/upload/PR_090409_HB2008-09-12-13TransmittalLetter.pdf.
The repeal is set to take effect on approximately November 24, 2009 (90 days after the special legislative session ended), however the repeal was made retroactive to September 29, 2009 with the intent to do away with any attempt to enforce the changes implemented by SB 1271 during the window between September 30 and November 24, 2009. The repeal means that investors of qualifying properties (properties on 2 1/2 acres or less and utilized — by anyone - as single 1 or 2 family dwelling) will continue to be protected by Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes upon a foreclosure by a first lien holder (barring any successful lender argument that SB 1271 should be applied to any foreclosures during the “window period” or any subsequent changes to the law).
However, remember that junior liens may or may not get anti-deficiency treatment following a foreclosure or short sale, but additional rules and analysis apply. This means that in some cases, junior lien holders whose lien is extinguished in a foreclosure or who release a lien in a short sale are not covered by AZ’s anti-deficiency laws and may sue a borrower on the note. In other cases, such lien holders will fall under the anti-deficiency statutes and will be barred from collecting on the note.
Always consult with a qualified professional on your particular situation and don’t forget that any foreclosure, short sale, deed in lieu or loan modification should be considered from a tax standpoint — consult with qualified tax professionals on your specific workout.
Marc McCain
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
BANK LOBBYISTS CAN’T KEEP STORY STRAIGHT RE ARIZ. SENATE BILL 1271
Bank lobbyists told Arizona’s legislators that our anti-deficiency statutes needed to be revised because spec builders were “gaming the system” by claiming they lived in their spec homes to get anti-deficiency treatment. The Senate’s internal memo on the bill stated that investment properties were “NOT” protected by existing anti-deficiency laws. No one paid attention to the arguments or the law. The bill sailed through both chambers without a fight and was signed into law.
When real estate professionals and consumers realized what had happened, they were enraged, and a little embarrassed that such a spin job had just been orchestrated right under their collective noses. As the complaints rolled in and problem after problem (with the bill) was highlighted, the banking lobby changed its tune. Suddenly, the bill wasn’t just about spec builders, but more about investors and fraud on banks. But remember, the legislature believed that investors didn’t get protection under existing laws. So why in the world would the issue suddenly be about investors when the new law was passed with our lawmakers thinking they didn’t get protection anyway?
Why? Because bank lobbyists knew they had been outed and also knew that placing the blame on “investors” plays well in the media. At least until you stop and ask yourself “who is an investor”. Banks would like you to think we are talking about institutional investors with pockets spilling over with cash. This may be true for some homes purchased as investments, but it is far from the typical profile of an “investor”.
First, most big money home investors buy homes with cash – thus, there is no home loan and no issue of a deficiency. Second, and most importantly, the typical investor I meet is your next door neighbor, your friend, your retired teacher or grocery store manager. They are not ”rich”, are not trying to “game the system” and not void of moral guilt about being unable to pay their mortgage.
The “investors” I meet are hard working, honest, credit worthy individuals that wanted simply to get a piece of Arizona’s real estate profits. In many cases, they were counseled to buy a property by real estate agents, mortgage brokers, appraisers and lenders that all told the same story. You know the fairy tale — prices will continue to rise, you’ll be able to sell the property in a year or 2 for a good profit, or refinance the loan into a better loan and pull money out. Real estate prices never fall, so it can’t go wrong. Nice story huh? Too bad so many of us fell for it and are now holding the bag.
So, the closing occurred and lenders, mortgage brokers, appraisers, title companies and inspection companies all got paid. The investor started making payments on its new found goldmine. The loan was immediately sold, the bank replenshed its pockets and the process started anew with another credit worthy investor. Until the bubble burst and we all realized we had been sold fools gold. The “investor” now held an overvalued asset that couldn’t sell for the loan balance, and couldn’t be rented for anything close to satisfy the monthly payments. Investors started losing jobs, the loan market dried up and lenders wouldn’t (and won’t) work with their borrowers to modify loans to match market conditions (despite Government assistance and lots of pushing).
So it is only logical that after fueling the real estate bubble in Arizona, banks want to change the anti-deficiency law with a minute to go in the game — right before a foreclosure occurs. Selling or taking back the property they took as collateral is not enough they say — they need to take whatever hard earned money the investor may have left – wage garnishment, cash and securities, non-exempt assets. You name it — they want it.
Way to go Arizona’s legislature — keep giving banks another lifeline. They haven’t received enough as it is. Take away the one protection Arizona consumers have in the residential real estate market –they don’t need it. After all, our State and Federal Gov’t will surely be giving consumers their own bailout soon — right???
Marc McCain
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
LOAN MODIFICATION DIFFERENT THAN LOAN RE-FINANCE
A recent article in the Phoenix Business Journal titled “Mortgage modifications elusive” wrote of the failure of the Government’s mortgage modification plan given the sharp decline in property values in certain cities such as Phoenix, Arizona. However, the article failed to distinguish between mortgage re-financings and mortgage modifications in the residential loan market, especially for homes that are upside down or underwater (meaning more is owed on the home than what the home is worth). The main point of the article was to say that if a borrower’s home loan is 105% or more of the home’s value, the borrower won’t qualify for a loan modification. Contrary to this recent article, a loan modification is possible where their home is underwater. The underwater rule applies only to loan re-financings under the U.S. Government’s Home Affordable Refinance program.
With respect to loan modifications, there is no rule that a homeowner cannot be underwater. In fact, a main goal of a modification and the Government’s Making Home Affordable loan modification program is to provide assistance to an underwater owner in an effort to avoid foreclosure. Today, loan modifications fall into 2 general categories – (1) a Federal loan modification under the U.S. Government’s Making Home Affordable program, and (2) a traditional loan modification (meaning one that is not subsidized by the U.S. Government). Although lenders historically have been hesitant to modify loans, as market conditions have worsened, many lenders have voluntarily modified loans to stave off foreclosure and the prospect of owning or selling another residence worth much less than the loan balance. This is especially true in states such as Arizona that have anti-deficiency statutes that in many instances prevent a lender from seeking a deficiency judgment against a borrower following a foreclosure (the only remedy of a lender in many cases is to foreclose on the residence).
While many homeowners and professionals have expressed frustration and confusion over the rules governing Federal backed loan modifications and traditional loan modifications, one thing is clear – the rules for residential loan modifications are changing often and rapidly. For instance, on April 28, 2009 the U.S. Treasury Department’s issued its latest rule changes regarding second mortgages under the Making Home Affordable loan modification program. Initially, second mortgages were not covered by the Government’s plan. Now, participating servicers are required to modify second loans or offer borrower’s discounts to pay the loan off. Moreover, the Federal loan modification program is in its infancy – both servicers and homeowners are still getting up to speed to understand the rules and process.
The point to be taken from all this is simple — homeowners should be hesitant to take “no” for an answer when seeking a loan modification – explore all options, don’t give up, continue to check your servicer’s guidelines and whether they are participating in the Federal loan modification program and, when all else fails, consult a professional with experience in the area. For additional information on the Government’s loan modification program, go to www.financialstability.gov/roadtostability/homeowner.html and to www.makinghomeaffordable.gov.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain&Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
Direct: (602) 604-2166