Archive for July, 2012

California Homeowners’ Bill of Rights Passes; Common Sense Prevails

Friday, July 13th, 2012

Bill of RightsHomeowners everywhere should be looking at California and taking notice. The government there is finally taking the power away from the banks and placing it back in the hands of the homeowners.

Outside of Florida, no state has been quite as devastated by the fraudclosure crisis as California has, so it comes as no surprise that they would be at the center of what looks like a growing trend.

Just this week Governor Jerry Brown signed into a law a Homeowners Bill of Rights. This legislation, among other things, will restrict dual-tracking, the shady practice of modifying a loan while still pursuing a foreclosure.

The law will also impose a singular point of contact for homeowners to deal with at their lender.

And of course it requires banks to prove that they have the legal right to foreclose and preserves the right for homeowners to take legal action when they don’t.

On one level it seems so preposterous that such rules would be needed, but we let the fox guard the henhouse for far too long, hence the reason we had a foreclosure crisis in the first place!

Those things that should be obvious are no longer just violations of common law (and common sense) but are finally being codified as violations of statutory law.

The reality is what you are seeing in California is an absolute necessity and they are not the only ones. Nevada actually passed similar rules last year. New York’s State Assembly just passed a bill that would criminalize robosigning, although sadly the Senate did not vote on the legislation this year.
(more…)

Fleeing Wall Street for Main Street; Investors Find Confidence in Real Estate

Monday, July 9th, 2012

Roy Oppenheim’s commentary was originally published on Yahoo! Homes and is being redistributed on South Florida Law Blog with their permission.

Wall Street SignA long time ago I left Wall Street for Main Street. It is a decision that I have never regretted. Both of the law firms I worked for, before my wife and I founded our own law firm, banked on the success of Wall Street’s largest banks.

Even back in the late ’80s, when Wall Street still had a certain level of prestige, I felt increasingly uncomfortable hitching my future success on that wagon.

Wall Street may have been an exciting place for a young lawyer, but leaving it allowed me to have the life that I was looking for and have a clear conscience at the same time.

And those feelings, which drove me to set up permanent residence on Main Street U.S.A, are no longer mine alone.

And that’s a good thing for our economy and our housing market. Because it is Main Street that will lead our economy back to greatness.

Confidence in Wall Street is eroding at a rapid pace, and distrust in the big banks isn’t just the domain of Occupy protesters or liberal politicians anymore.

The truth is that it is impossible to read the business section of any major newspaper or website without finding another glaring example of hubris or incompetence.

Jamie Dimon wishes that JP Morgan’s recent trading loss was only $2 billion. The Libor bid-rigging scandal just claimed the chairman of Barclays, and now several U.S. banks are being investigated for similar manipulation of interest rates.
(more…)

The Truth About Obamacare’s Real Estate Sales Tax (It Doesn’t Exist)

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Income TaxIt didn’t take long for old rumors to resurface about President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

When “Obamacare” was first passed the blogosphere was up-in-arms that the AHA included an additional 3.8% tax on any real estate sale, and claimed, “that’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home.”

There were email chains passed along that said that anyone who sold a home would be subject to this tax.

Which is absolutely true, except for the fact that it is complete fiction.

The rumors have long since been debunked, yet after the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Health Care Act earlier this week, I’ve heard some conservatives once again pushing this narrative.

But just like Bloody Mary or death panels, it’s just another urban legend that just won’t go away.

So kids once more with feeling, “There is no real estate sales tax in Obamacare.”

Now there is an additional capital gains tax included in the Affordable Care Act, and yes it will affect a narrow field of real estate transactions.

But here is what you need to know; the majority of taxpayers will not have to pay it.

So here is the truth, plain and simple.

There is a new tax on investment income which will cover the income from interest, dividends, rents, as well as capital gains. It’s not a transfer tax on real estate sales.

While the sale of a home can be subject to this tax, it is only if a number of criteria are met.

If you are a married couple making less than $250,000 or an individual making less than $200,000, then you cannot be taxed.
(more…)

Seguro Medico de Obama (Obamacare), La Crisis de Foreclosure y Las Reglas de la Ley

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Estecomentario fue publicado en Yahoo! Originalmente, y esta siendo re distribuidopor el Blog Legal del Sur de la Florida conprevia autorización.

United States Supreme CourtAh? Que significa el seguro medico de Obama oObamacare como es referido y que tiene que ver con la Crisis de Foreclosure?

Simplemente pon, el debate legal acerca del Obamacaresobre un mandado especifico, una ley que requiere que los ciudadanos del paíscompren un seguro medico lo quieran o no.

Para mi asombro, La Corte Suprema ha pasado esta ley, pero como un impuesto.

Durante el periodo de tiempo mientras esta ley estabasiendo discutida y pasada, parecía que el Presidente hubiera asumido que elGobierno tenía el derecho de forzar a los ciudadanos a adquirir un producto deuna compañía privada aunque este no sea necesariamente deseado.

La supervivencia de este mandado en La Corte Supremaen un estándar más limitado, deja este asunto lejos de ser solucionado.

Yo siento que hubo muy poco, si acaso algún análisisconstitucional hecho por parte del Presidente o su equipo al momento de ladecisión de pasar el mandado, excepto por el hecho de percibir que había unagran necesidad de este.

Así fue como el debate sobre la Ley de seguros médicosme recordó de un debate legal ocurrido durante la crisis de Foreclosure.

Cuando yo empecé a defender dueños de hogar, los juecesle daban un solo vistazo: si solicitaste el préstamo, entonces debes el dinero,y tienes que pagarlo.

Nadie se detenía a pensar si los bancos queintroducían estos foreclosure tenían el derecho constitucional de hacerlo.

Nadie.

Nadie preguntaba si los bancos habían cumplido con losrequerimientos legales antes de proceder a introducir la demanda, como porejemplo la asignación de notas o elconocimiento del verdadero dueño de la hipoteca.
(more…)


PHP/MySQL Components, WordPress Plugins, and Technology Opinions at TravisWeston.com

Bad Behavior has blocked 1544 access attempts in the last 7 days.