phoenix real estate lawyer
NO DECISION ON ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1271 — YET
1 Senate vote. Just 1. That’s all that was needed to pass Arizona’s 2010 budget and along with it, repeal Senate Bill 1271. For those that have not been following this issue, Senate Bill 1271 amends Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and allows a lender to sue many borrowers for the deficiency balance owed on a home loan after a foreclosure. The bill was passed to assist Arizona community banks, although it helps ALL banks including those receiving Federal aid. In addition, the abysmal wording of the new law takes many home loans out of anti-deficiency protection even if the borrower has lived in the home for years (see issues regarding certificate of occupancy requirements in prior blog entries).
What is worse is that the legislation was passed based on an incorrect understanding of existing anti-deficiency laws (legislators were informed that current law does not give anti-deficiency treatment to investors of residential property — simply not true) and a complete bait-and-switch tactic employed by bank lobbyists to trump up support for their bill. There is a fine line between truth and lies in politics and in my opinion bank lobbyists should be ashamed of themselves for their misleading tactics and utter spin job.
Fortunately, there is still hope that a budget will be approved that includes a repeal of Senate Bill 1271. Urge your legislators to stand up for consumer rights and mandate that a repeal of SB 1271 be included in the budget proposal. You can find email addresses of all legislators on www.azleg.gov.
As a side note, Senator Pierce, the sponsor of Senate Bill 1271, should be applauded for recognizing the problems with SB 1271 and publicly calling for its repeal. Such an occurrence is rare in politics — kind of like a baseball umpire reversing his call. Hopefully, the rest of our legislature can take Senator Pierce’s lead on this and do the right thing, at least for once.
Marc McCain
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
LETTER TO ARIZONA LEGISLATORS re ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1271
Here is a copy of the email correspondence I sent to Senator Sylvia Allen today. If anyone has a stake in the change in Arizona’s anti-deficiency law, I ask that you email me your concerns and opinions at mmccain@mblawaz.com. Although I have my own thoughts on this issue, I would like as much input as possible to take to Arizona’s legislators in the coming days.
Senator Allen:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday and hearing my concerns over the passage of SB 1271. I want to stress that, although I support the AAR’s call for a repeal of the statute, I am not currently working on behalf of any one group or association. My concerns are based solely on what I am certain was an incorrect understanding of Arizona law and what I believe is an exaggerated problem of spec builder abuse of existing law (in the overall picture).
In addition, there appears to have been little to no discussion of the many serious consequences this legislation will have on thousands of Arizona property owners. These include garnishment of assets and wages, forced bankruptcies and cancelled debt taxes that could be substantial. All of these issues do not bode well for the average Arizonan at a time when they are struggling to stay afloat. For many people, this bill will either take whatever funds they have left, or push them into bankruptcy and neither result is good for Arizona’s economy.
Moreover, the wording of the statute and each change to the statute will create tremendous ambiguity in the courts and force potentially thousands of helpless property owners to litigate deficiency lawsuits against lenders and their counsel. In such litigation, the owner will now have the burden to establish the requirement that the property was lived in for 6 or more months. Since many lenders have no idea of how the property has been used, homeowners will face “fishing” lawsuits where lenders force them to satisfy their burden of proof in court or face a judgment – even if they in fact lived in the property for countless years. This is a David vs. Goliath scenario waiting to happen.
The certificate of occupancy (C of O) requirement is simply bad law and does not further the intent behind the change to the law. As I have indicated in my prior correspondence, not all cities issue C of O’s, some cities (like Phoenix) only started issuing them in more modern times, and even if a C of O can be obtained where one was not issued, this will tax local governments and their building departments at a time when resources are scarce, and can result in inspections of property and required upgrades to bring a property current (in order to get a C of O).
If this law is not repealed, it will most certainly result in a constitutional challenge by one or more consumer groups. The law was written to have retroactive effect – meaning it will be used against borrowers that entered into contracts long before the law was changed, and before foreclosure proceedings even commenced. In short, it will be used in an effort to change the rules governing the loan agreement and the borrower’s obligations thereunder after the contractual obligations were entered into. Given the vagueness in the law, the impact it will have on existing contractual rights and obligations, the problems with the C of O requirement, and the fact that the premise of the law was flawed, I expect a court to determine the law to be unconstitutional as written.
I am receiving numerous calls from owners and lenders asking about the new law. So far, the lenders I have spoken with are not calling about spec builders in default, but investors of qualifying residential property that will no longer get anti-deficiency treatment if the change in the law stands (despite the fact that the property has been used as a dwelling, albeit perhaps not by the borrower). Since the premise for the need to change the law was incorrect (which it most certainly was), the resulting legislation was inherently flawed. If lenders wanted to change the law to their benefit, they should have done so by presenting an accurate account of the law and with ALL impacts properly discussed and analyzed. I urge you to do what is necessary to repeal this law and bring the lenders and their lobby back to the table during the next normal legislative session to have a well rounded and accurate discussion of the issues at play.
Sincerely,
Marc McCain
Attorney at Law
PROBLEMS WITH AZ’S NEW ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAWS
The major premise for the Senate Bill 1271 was that the existing anti-deficiency statute was being manipulated by borrowers that were sleeping on floors or moving into a residence with little belongings so they could claim the property was used as a dwelling and then get anti-deficiency treatment.
The 2 main new requirements of the anti-deficiency statute are:
(1) the property must be used as a dwelling by the trustor for 6 or more consecutive months; and
(2) a certificate of occupancy must have been issued for the property.
The problem with the premise for SB 1271 is that it applies predominantly to those borrowers that are building a home with the loan for resale or don’t complete the property and then claim anti-deficiency protection. The current statute already provides that the home must be used as a dwelling – it just doesn’t say that the borrower has to use it as a dwelling. Arizona courts have interpreted the statute to mean that as long as the residence is on 2 ½ acres or less of land and is used by anyone as a dwelling (e.g. a renter, the home owner or family member, etc.) it will get anti-deficiency treatment. However, Arizona courts have also said that the statute does not apply to borrowers who are building the residence for resale. Thus, the premise presented was targeting those people who, the story went, had really got the loan to build and sell the home but couldn’t sell it or complete it and then manipulated the statute to say they used it as a dwelling because they camped out in the living room for a short period.
Presumably, the certificate of occupancy requirement was related to this alleged problem since it would prevent those borrowers who may have been close to having completed construction of a home but didn’t get all final work done and inspected from trying to manipulate the statute by camping out in a home and then claiming they should get anti-deficiency protection (for example, a home that didn’t have water or sewer facilities, but could be alleged to have been used as a dwelling).
While I am not saying that such manipulation has never occurred or is impossible, I would suggest that this scenario represents a miniscule percentage of the problem loans that have gone to foreclosure or are heading to foreclosure. Most borrowers are not building their own homes – they are either buying a home from another or refinancing an existing home loan. Yes, the manipulation cited could also occur where a borrower buys a new residence from a builder and then never uses it or rents it, but again, most investors are able to rent a home at some time for some price, or in fact use the residence as a dwelling for some time (e.g. a second home, vacation home, etc.). Moreover, since the statute already requires the home to be used as a dwelling, and the case law says that builder/sellers do not get anti-deficiency protection, all the lender had to do was prove its case in a deficiency action. Once it presented evidence to show the borrower hadn’t completed the home and/or that it was not really used as a dwelling, the burden of proof would shift to the borrower to rebut this. While I can appreciate the desire to shift the burden of proof to the borrower regarding use as a dwelling, I think the overall summary of the statute is that our legislature just took a chainsaw to a problem that required a scalpel.
Moreover, the certificate of occupancy requirement was completely ill-conceived since many homes were built before certificates of occupancy were issued and some cities and areas in Arizona don’t even issue a formal certificate of occupancy – e.g. Mesa according to its Permits Supervisor.
There are numerous other issues and questions presented by the new law including:
1. does use by the trustor as a dwelling mean the trustor had to live in the property, or merely put it to use by someone as a dwelling — e.g. a renter for instance (note the legislative summary clearly states the intent was that the trustor had to live in the property)?
2. can a borrower use (or live in) more than 1 property as a dwelling at the same time — for instance a vacation home and a main residence?
3. how will a court interpret the 6 consecutive month requirement? if a borrrower that has lived in a home for 3 months goes on an extended vacation, does that stop the clock on the 6 month requirement and require that the borrower use or live in the home for 6 months or more upon return? what about extended illnesses or out of state work assignments?
4. will the new law be applied retroactively to all loans made before the September 30, 2009 effective date but that result in a foreclosure after such date?
5. will courts strictly construe the certificate of occupancy issue?
6. can an entity such as a LLC or corporation that owns a home satisfy the “use as a dwelling” or “lived in” requirement?
I have met with dozens and dozens of clients that are having difficulty making payments on one or more home loans. They are by and large homeowners and relatively small scale investors that bought homes in the boom times believing they could get a share of Arizona’s rising real estate prices. These borrowers were not and are not seeking legal advice to game the system, but to confirm the laws that were in effect when they got the loan — the laws they expected would apply in the unlikely event they lost the home to foreclosure. These clients have presented a consistent story of having excellent credit, never skipping out on a loan and having moral guilt over the prospect of a foreclosure. Now, after making decisions based on what was thought to be a well settled set of rules for borrowers and lenders to play by, our legislature, at the pushing of the banking lobby, just changed the rules of the game with 2:00 minutes to go in the fourth quarter. In Football, it would be like giving the defense an extra 3 players for the offense’s 2 minute drill.
What’s even worse is that none of the foregoing discussion addresses the 1099 cancellation of debt issue that was created for many investors and homeowners that now won’t fall under an exception to cancellation of debt income following a foreclosure. I doubt our legislature or Governor considered or even understood these issues. The potential tax liability created for thousands of Arizona residents and investors could have significant negative consequences for Arizona’s economy and recovery. We already know loan dollars are scarce, now we’ll have fewer investment dollars in Arizona pockets to feed Arizona’s recovery. Given the manner this bill was pushed through (the strike everything amendment) and the trumped up problem presented by the banking lobby, I think Arizona residents should be alarmed and outraged. This is not the way good law is made.
Finally, if manipulation was a concern to the banking lobby, I can’t imagine a statute being more susceptible to manipulation than the one they just helped create. Now, investors who own more than 1 property need merely stagger their foreclosures and move from home to home for a 6 month period to satisfy the new requirement (as intended by the legislature). Most foreclosures take longer than 6 months anyway and during this time the borrower is not paying the lender. So, the new law might slow down foreclosures some, but for many Arizona residents that invested in property and have made the decision that letting it go the bank is the best option, all they did was create some extra steps to get to the same position (assuming the other requirements of the statute are satisfied).
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
www.mccain-bursh.com
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