Foreclosure

Subscribe to Foreclosure via RSS

Sure, vacant properties bring to mind decay, blight, vandalism and the like, and Chicago’s south and west sides are plagued (pdf) with vacant properties; but is the answer requiring lenders to shoulder the responsibility (and liability) for the maintenance and upkeep of these properties?

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel thinks so. On July 28, Chicago’s City Council passed an ordinance amendment that would require mortgage holders (and assignees named in RMBS securitizations) to assume liability for the maintenance, security and upkeep of vacant properties, regardless of the delinquency or foreclosure status. The ordinance would define as an “owner” of a vacant building a mortgage holder — even before the mortgage holder has foreclosed on the property. Unless it is delayed, the ordinance is expected to become effective on September 18, 2011.
 Continue Reading May There Be Enough Wind in Chicago to Blow This Ordinance Amendment Away

A colleague and good friend of mine is house shopping. She spent last weekend touring a home in Hingham – a popular, picturesque waterfront suburb south of the city where many travel to Boston’s financial district each morning by ferry (the trip across the Harbor shaves 40 minutes off the commute). The listing caught her eye because of the size of the home and the price – a little too big, a little too well-maintained for the asking price. Turns out the home was being offered by a developer that had acquired the property from a foreclosing lender – something commonplace throughout the country as the national housing market desperately seeks to achieve stability. But in post-Ibanez Massachusetts, where home ownership can rest on an (unelected) judge’s determination that mortgage assignment documentation was defective, buying a home that has been subject to foreclosure (at any point) is a risk that perhaps no reasonable purchaser can take.
 Continue Reading The Defeasance of Mr. Bevilacqua: Fallout from Ibanez Decision Continues in Massachusetts

In a widely-covered slip opinion issued late last week, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied two securitization trustees’ requests to quiet title with respect to a pair of foreclosed homes. Press reaction was fast and perhaps a touch too furious – CNN Money hailed the Court giving “banks a ‘beat-down’ over foreclosures”, while Reuters used the word “catastrophe”. The Journal saw the decision as a “setback” – probably the more sober analysis (which isn’t meant to downplay the importance of the Ibanez decision – lots of uneasy servicers will be scrubbing mortgage loan files in the coming months). But the decision itself is not, from a Massachusetts’ lawyer’s perspective, terribly surprising and, in fact, could actually be read to ratify certain practices common in securitized lending.Continue Reading Ibanez Foreclosure Decision a Concern for Massachusetts Lenders

Of the many stories that garnered national coverage during Tuesday’s midterm elections, Thomas Miller’s successful election to an eighth term as Iowa’s Attorney General went largely unnoticed by the talking heads at MSNBC and Fox. Miller is the point-man for the 50-state investigation into the burgeoning mess the media likes to call the “Foreclosure Crisis”. We’ve already learned about the dangers of RoboSigners (see Rick’s blog post), and the past weeks have seen a notable increase in coverage regarding a ubiquitous but heretofore relatively unknown company called MERS.

The Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems– a company essentially founded by industry participants (the GSE’s and some big-time private label issuers) – serves two primary functions. First, the company acts as record title holder of the mortgage (as nominee for the noteholder) and keeps track of the owner of the beneficial interests in the note. Second, in states where it is permitted, MERS will appear in court to execute the foreclosure process. Seems pretty innocuous – placing nominal title to a security interest in the name of a nominee for the benefit of the actual stakeholders in the debt. But in early October, a judge in Oregon stopped a foreclosure of a securitized sub-prime residential mortgage loan on the grounds that the assignment of a mortgage to MERS was ineffective because MERS didn’t hold the note – leading the judge to find that MERS lacked a cognizable interest in the property (I expect that this will not be the last we here with respect to this ruling). Then Jamie Dimon commented during an earnings call that his firm no longer used MERS, a story picked up by CNBC (turns out JP Morgan cut ties with MERS in 2008). The Times followed with a story last week detailing two recent scholarly articles by law professors at Utah and Georgetown that take issue with MERS from a public policy perspective.Continue Reading Foreclosure Crisis: Much Ado About MERS?

I’m shocked, shocked! Our elected panjandrums have discovered and the media has slovenly reported with considerable glee (if it bleeds, it leads) that, in processing millions of residential foreclosures, Robosigner signed off on files prepared for foreclosure by nameless employees (or machines). Anything which 47Attorneys General think is a good idea in the middle of a political season to beat most political seasons is, by definition, suspect. I hear fraud tossed around, I’m starting to hear criminal investigation tossed around. And they’re serious. I feel for the poor bastards deep in the bowels of those lenders, just doing their jobs, who may now become “targets.”

Continue Reading Robosigners Destroy the Republic! Really?