Skip to main content

Category Archives: Foreclosure

Short Sale investors flipping homes – Good or Bad?

Over the past couple of years since “Short Sales” have been the hot topic in the real estate market I’ve been contacted by several mortgage brokers and investors/firms looking to get access to my clients who need to sell properties and who are upside down in their homes value.

These people offered to help my clients by making an offer on their home. (Banks are only willing to talk about a short sale if we have an offer) They will negotiate the short sale on behalf of the client and purchase the home (if they can get a good deal).

I was quite interested when I heard this the first time, because I know how hard it can be to find a buyer who is willing to wait 3-9 months before they can close on a home (these mortgage brokers who weren’t making money by financing homes now wanted to make a living from people’s hardship) It was pitched to me that I would make the commission on the listing side and on the buying side. After the bank approved the sale I would then market the home below fair market value to find a buyer quickly. (Banks typically give us 30-60 days to close the transaction once they have given us their approval) I would then get the commission on the listing side and maybe the buying side for the investor. WOW that could be as much as 12% commission for one deal! Who wouldn’t be interested in that?! (not me if it’s hurting someone)

After further questioning, I discovered these “white knights” looking to help my sellers get out of their homes make offers at 65% below fair market value minus repairs and tie up the home for several months negotiating with the bank. They had no intention of buying the home unless they can sell the bank on accepting this lowball offer, then finding an end buyer who will pay market value for the home. Once they find an end buyer they use a “Hard Money Lender” to close on the property, then resell the home the same day to the end buyer making a huge profit.

If no end buyer can be found or the bank doesn’t accept the low ball offer the seller could end up in foreclosure, plus during the time the home was under contract with the investor any real buyers miss out on these homes. These investors are not helping the turn around of the real estate market they are just taking advantage of desperate sellers and banks, ultimately you and I as tax payers are fitting the bill for these guys because its our tax paying money that has been bailing out the banks from their losses.

Example: At the end of last year a client of mine made an offer on a home in Crescent Heights, we received a counter offer where the sellers name was scratched out and an investment firms name was in its place. The investor had gotten the seller to sign a contract which allowed the investment firm to control the sale as described above. We did come to terms on a sales price after going back and forth for a couple of days. At the closing the investor walked away with over $13,000. The seller could still be on the hook for any unpaid balance of the mortgage.

I feel the banks and/or the government need to set rules to prevent these investors from taking advantage of our down turned real estate market.

High court: Mediate on foreclosure

TAMPA, Fla. – Jan. 5, 2009 – Florida homeowners facing foreclosure may soon get one last chance to negotiate with lenders trying to take back their homes.

The Florida Supreme Court issued an administrative order last week that requires a third-party mediation program with all new foreclosure lawsuits involving primary residences.

The goal of the order, written by Chief Justice Peggy Quince, is to help handle the state’s glut of foreclosures. An estimated 456,000 foreclosure cases statewide are clogging the court system, she said.

Florida has the third-highest mortgage delinquency rate in the nation, according to the order. “The crisis continues unabated,” Quince wrote.

The order backs a recommendation made in August by the Supreme Court’s residential task force. The court asked the task force to study the problem and offer guidance.

“I’m pleased the court recognized the need of what the task force asked for,” said Alan Bookman, a task force member and former Florida Bar president. “This is going to force lenders and borrowers to talk to each other. They may not be able to work something out, but it’s a start.”

Lenders have spoken out against mandatory mediation and said it would cause even more delays. Alex Sanchez, president and CEO of the Florida Bankers Association, told the Tribune in August that lenders already are in constant touch with borrowers and file foreclosure cases as a last resort.

Sanchez could not be reached for comment Monday.

The mediation order will be executed through the chief judges of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits. Bookman said he expects the program to be in place by mid-February.

The program requires sending all cases involving primary residences to mediation unless the plaintiff and borrower have already done so or both parties agree to opt out.

The cost of mediation is not to exceed $750, according to the order. Lenders would pay the fee initially, though they could recoup some costs if mediation fails and a foreclosure lawsuit is filed in court.

It’s unclear on what date the mediation requirement kicks in, but it does not apply to cases already in the pipeline, Bookman said.

The order likely will apply to cases filed after the chief judges sign orders for each circuit, Bookman said. However, the chief judges could assign a different date.

“They could make it affective for cases filed this week, when the order was signed,” Bookman said.

Most areas of Florida continue to see a rise in foreclosure filings.

However, the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metro area recently saw overall foreclosure filings slow. The November number dropped 9 percent year-over-year and 1 percent from the previous month, according to RealtyTrac, a California company that tracks mortgage activity.

Even so, the area has been rocked by foreclosures. The category of filings known as new foreclosure lawsuits increased in November, from 31,380 the month before to 32,276.

Deficiency Judgments: The Real Risk

There are numerous websites showing the legal and theoretical possibilities of being sued after foreclosure. Many so-called “foreclosure experts” threaten homeowners with the possibility of being sued after foreclosure, and having their wages garnished, cars repossessed, or given enormous tax bills from the IRS. Since so many state foreclosure laws do allow deficiency judgments, there is always the danger of being sued after foreclosure. However, most of the foreclosure advice being given to homeowners is wildly inaccurate. In almost every single case, what usually “actually” happens is…
Nothing.

The bank, after the foreclosure, would have to sue the former foreclosure victims for the deficiency judgment if one even exists. This means the bank would have to hire lawyers, pay attorney fees and court costs, and would simply have a judgment against them. There is no expectation that they would ever be able to collect on that judgment, and banks are aware that homeowners go into foreclosure because they run out of money. So, if they know homeowners have experienced a financial hardship and do not have any money, and the mortgage company has already lost money on the loan due to the foreclosure, there is little reason for them to sue again. They just move on with attempting to sell the property on the open market and recoup some of their losses.

When a homeowner sells the property before the foreclosure and sells it at a lower amount than what is owed on the loan, this is called a short sale, and is one of the most common ways that homeowners can stop foreclosure on their homes. In this case, the homeowners would get a 1099 at the end of the year, since the bank is forgiving the difference in the loan amount. Forgiven debt is counted as income. But this is only a possibility when a homeowner has worked out a short sale with the bank and a buyer, and the home has actually transferred ownership through the short sale.

When the house is sold at sheriff sale for a loss, this is not forgiven debt. It is merely a sale of the house, and homeowners do not get a 1099 if they do not receive any profit from the sheriff sale and if no debt is forgiven. The house is just taken from them to pay the bank and the bank gets the property back because that was pledged as collateral on the original loan. The legal mechanism of foreclosure allows for the sale of the property at a public auction, but has nothing to do with forgiving any portion of the actual debt represented by the foreclosure judgment.

So that is what actually happens in the vast, vast majority of foreclosure situations. Banks rarely pursue deficiency judgments unless they know the homeowners have a lot of cash and other assets that would make it worth suing them. This is not the case in most foreclosures, though. While literally hundreds of online resources and charlatans will threaten homeowners with the possibility of a deficiency judgment and all of its ill effects after foreclosure, the banks themselves are wise enough to recognize that suing their former clients is not in their best interests in all but the most extreme cases. In fact, most lenders would gladly give former foreclosure victims another loan, if they met the qualifications; so there is no reason to turn away future business due to an unfortunate financial hardship that led to the foreclosure.

www.foreclosurefish.com

Limitations on Deficiency Judgments After Foreclosure

Homeowners are often worried that the foreclosure process will never end. The bank will sue them, publish their personal financial problems in the newspaper, take their home back, evict them, and then sue them again for any deficiency from auctioning the property. With the anticipation of a deficiency judgment, borrowers may feel like they will never be able to restart their lives and move on after foreclosure.
However, this is most often simply not the case. The potential for a deficiency judgment, while it exists, can be microscopically small. For a variety of reasons, banks do not pursue homeowners after foreclosure, even if there is a deficiency. As well, there are numerous state and local statutes and court decisions that place limits on how much money a bank can even obtain from this type of lawsuit.

First of all, many lenders decide not to sue for a deficiency judgment because they know that homeowners are unlikely to have any other assets with which to pay the debt. Most borrowers default on their home due to financial hardships such as a job loss or major medical expense. It is probably safe to assume that families in this position do not have the income or assets to pay a judgment for tens of thousands of dollars.

In many cases, the bank, in order to obtain such a judgment, will have to spend several hundred or thousand dollars out of its own pocket. Court fees must be paid if another lawsuit is to be brought into court, and attorney costs will be paid out of pocket by the bank to proceed with the deficiency lawsuit. After losing so much money from the foreclosure and auction of the home, banks most often cut their losses instead of look for a deficiency.

State statutes regarding deficiency judgments also come into play and can dramatically affect how much the bank is able to sue for or recover from the former homeowners. However, borrowers should also be aware that most anti-deficiency judgment statutes apply only to purchase-money mortgages, and second mortgages or refinances may not be affected by these particular laws.

In fact, some states have simply banned deficiency judgments against borrowers when the foreclosure was done nonjudicially through a power of sale clause in a deed of trust. Borrowers in these states can be completely safe from being sued after foreclosure. Although the nonjudicial process affords the fewest legal protections during the foreclosure, it may offer the best chance of avoiding being sued again after the auction.

Other states place restrictions on how much a lender can recover from a deficiency by limiting the amount of the judgment. This is done by giving borrowers a credit for the “fair value” of the property. The fair value is determined by figuring out what the property is actually worth, and this will most often be defined by the statute itself. It may not mean the sales price at auction or the market value of the home, so it is important to read to the state law on the issue.

Another restriction that has been placed on banks seeking deficiency judgments is strict time frames in which the judgment can be initiated. If banks were able to wait years before suing the former owners, it may be nearly impossible for the family to get on with its financial life. Instead of having borrowers live with the threat of a lawsuit, states have decided that deficiency judgment suits must be pursued almost immediately after foreclosure, or the opportunity to do so is eliminated.

Lenders may also have procedural restrictions placed on their ability to sue borrowers after foreclosure. In some cases, the bank may have to provide additional notices to the owners informing them of the intent to seek a deficiency judgment. As well, the bank may be required to seek a determination of deficiency in the original lawsuit, rather than bring a lawsuit seeking the judgment after the sheriff sale has been conducted.

Many of these restrictions may come into play at the same time, while banks will run into one after another in other foreclosures. These limitations and additional requirements, along with the likeliness of never being able to collect on the judgment, ensure that the majority of homeowners are safe from being sued for a deficiency. While it is not impossible to be sued by the bank, the legal hurdles to overcome in pursuing this lawsuit make it somewhat rare in the world of foreclosures.

www.foreclosurefish.com

Why the Bank Will Not Pursue a Deficiency Judgment & Wage Garnishment

Homeowners are often worried about further collection attempts after a foreclosure has been completed. After losing their homes, they worry about seeing their car repossessed, bank accounts levied, or wages garnished. But in most cases, there is little chance of a deficiency judgment or future collection attempts due to the numerous obstacles in the path of the bank.
This is the factor that most borrowers do not consider when worrying about the possibility of a deficiency judgment. It is often not in the bank’s interest to spend its time and resources pursuing previous foreclosure victims who found it difficult to pay back their original loans. It costs money and takes time to hire attorneys and proceed with another lawsuit in the court system, and there is little incentive to do so against defendants who proved they do not have the financial ability to pay a judgment.

There are at least five considerations that banks have to take into account before they proceed with suing and attempting to collect on a deficiency judgment. These considerations are as follows:

Does the law allow a deficiency judgment?
Was there a deficiency at the sheriff sale?
What is the fair market value of the home?
Is there a reason to expect the borrowers can pay?
Is the judgment likely to be discharged?
These five issues are discussed in more depth in the paragraphs following.

The first consideration homeowners have to take into account is, does their state allow deficiency judgments after foreclosure? They should immediately look up their state foreclosure laws to find out if this is even a possibility, let alone probably. If they are not allowed, then there is no danger of garnishment. If yes, other factors will have to be met before collection efforts can resume.

Second, if the state allows a deficiency judgment, was there actually a deficiency at the sheriff sale? A deficiency is when the house sells for less than what the borrowers owe on it. If they owe $140,000 and the property is auctioned for $130,000, there is a $10,000 deficiency. Unfortunately, due to rapidly declining home values, many foreclosure auctions end with a deficiency.

Third, what is the fair market value of the home? Many courts will allow a deficiency judgment only for up to the actual value of the house. Using the example in the previous paragraph, if the house auctioned for $130,000 and the homeowners owed $140,000, but the fair market value is $135,000, courts may limit the deficiency to a maximum of $5,000. That is the fair market value ($135k) minus the sales price at auction ($130k).

Fourth, if the state allows a deficiency and there is one that is above the fair market value of the home, what gives the lender the incentive to go after the judgment? Many lenders will not bother with a deficiency judgment because they know that homeowners in foreclosure are strapped for cash. It costs more in attorney fees and court costs than the lender will ever be able to recover from most borrowers, so what is their incentive to sue for a deficiency?

The final consideration when examining the possibility of wage garnishment for a debt after foreclosure is that deficiency judgments are dischargeable in bankruptcy. If the bank gets a judgment against borrowers and tries to garnish wages, the former owners can file a Chapter 7 and have it eliminated, if they meet the other requirements for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. So even in the worst case scenario, homeowners might be able to avoid wage garnishment.

Thus, unless many of these considerations work out in favor of the bank, there is little chance of a deficiency judgment. This does not mean that there are no such judgments, as some states allow the request for a deficiency to be included in the original lawsuit. However, it does mean that many lenders have decided not to pursue homeowners after the foreclosure is over and the home sold, regardless of whether the bank was completely paid back by the auction or not.

www.foreclosurefish.com