Archive for the ‘Florida real estate’ Category

60 Minutes: Underwater Homes? Everyone’s getting wet!

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

The world is upside down again: Banks are walking away while homeowners are staying to fight for their neighborhoods.

That’s what the team at Oppenheim Law realized after watching 60 Minutes’ latest piece on the foreclosure crisis. This time Scott Pelley focused on a neighborhood in Cleveland where               officials  has resorted to tearing down what were once perfectly good homes.

Why? Because the banks that control the homes have been acting as terrible irresponsible neighbors.  The end result is too many neighborhoods are littered with abandoned      properties,   many of which have been stripped to the bone by thieves. As many as 25 percent of these homes are now empty, according to Pelley. These neighborhoods, of which there are far too many,   have fallen into a state of disrepair, where a total tear-down is the only option.

You don’t have to be underwater to get splashed

Probably the most disturbing revelation to come out of the 60 Minutes story was the foreclosure crisis has impacted all homeowners, regardless of whether they are in danger of losing their homes or not. In fact their homes didn’t even need to be underwater to feel the pinch of the housing mess.

With countless homes now empty and transformed into eyesores, those who remain are seeing their property values sink faster than the Titanic.  People are left with homes that are virtually worthless and unsellable, so even if they wanted to buy a home somewhere else, it’s unlikely they could.

Once such woman featured in the story, Roberta Bryant, when asked what her home was now worth, replied “30 dollars.”  She might have been laughing when she said it, but she wasn’t joking.

Banks leave communities behind, while homeowners rally behind them

While there has been plenty of debate whether people should walk away from a house that is underwater, 60 Minutes revealed a dirty little secret, banks have been doing just that.

When you look at the condition of some of the abandoned homes seen in the story, one needs look squarely at the banks for blame.  They should be maintaining these homes after they foreclose on them, but instead in many cases they do nothing, allowing these homes to become blights on the neighborhood and a haven for squatters or criminal activity.

The fact is, banks are cheap too. For all the the talk about financial responsibility, Jim Rokakis, a former county treasurer who spoke to Pelley said banks sometimes won’t go through with a foreclosure to avoid spending the $8-$10,000 to tear the house down. A cost the government is often left to pay.

Which is why we’re proud of homeowners like Linda Bizzelle. She was one of many homeowners interviewed, who despite having a home that’s now worth half of what she paid for it, refuses to walk away. People like her are the reason this epidemic hasn’t spread.

Monica Hubbard, another such homeowner, was asked why she continued to pay her mortgage.

“Because I signed on the line. I made a promise”, she replied. When asked if her signature still meant something, she answered “It does.”

Now when was the last time you heard a bank say that?

The ‘Principal’ Solution

Rokasis didn’t flinch when asked what it would take to keep more homes from meeting a wrecking ball. To the surprise of no one — he puts the responsibility, as he should, on the banks.

“You’re gonna have to write down principle balances,” Rokasis told 60 Minutes, “Because if you don’t write down the principle to something that’s more realistic, it just guarantees that more people will walk away and more people will default.”

We couldn’t agree more. The banks have often taken an all-or-nothing approach to foreclosure, which is akin to putting a square peg in a round hole.  It just won’t fit anymore. If the banks won’t accept responsibility for mess they created, than they at least should lessen the burden on today’s homeowner. It makes no sense why they wouldn’t want to keep people in their homes, even if they take a loss.

Isn’t getting 75,000 dollars back on a 150,000 loan better than having a homeowner walk away and getting nothing in return?

Foreclosure is a troublesome virus that is on the verge of becoming a pandemic, banks have the cure — now if they would only use it.

Roy Oppenheim
From the Trenches

Own vs Rent: Florida Stronger Allure for Home Buyers

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

Are the days of foreclosure turning into buy-closure?

Owning a home in Florida continues to become the more affordable option  relative to renting, but several obstacles prevent many from taking the plunge according to a recent Florida real estate article in the Wall Street Journal.

 

(more…)

Robo Signers Celebrate One Year Anniversary and Roy Oppenheim Looks for Foreclosure Off Ramp

Friday, October 7th, 2011

Robot Rainbow

This is the anniversary no one wants to celebrate.

“We’re hitting the one-year anniversary of the robo-signing crisis,” noted Roy Oppenheim, Florida foreclosure defense attorney. “The banks said it would take 60 days to fix. It didn’t take 60 days. It’s been over a year.”

A recent article in the Daily Business Review highlights October as the anniversary month when the home foreclosure mess became a certified nightmare. Around this time in 2010, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and the Federal National Mortgage Association basically asked the people responsible for the mortgage mess to police themselves and conduct self-audits to make sure their paperwork was legal.

Continue Reading…

Rumor Mill: Truth on New Real Estate “Sales Tax”

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

 

Rumors are spreading about a new tax on real estate that is part of President Obama’s healthcare law.

The new tax, which has been dubbed a real estate “sales tax,” has a lot of misinformation out about it. For example, many blogs such as the Spokesman Review accuse the new law of imposing a 3.8% tax on the sale of all real estate. Email chains such as the one quoted in the Attack Machine blog claim that the tax will affect all real estate transactions, like “that’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home.”

Such claims are untrue.

In the old days, all real estate transactions were subject to the capital gains tax, a tax on income from investments. President Clinton introduced an exemption to the tax for primary residences with a profit of $500,000. Now, profits under $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for individuals are exempt from the tax, currently at 15%. The new tax adds an additional 3.8% surtax to those transactions that exceed the exemption. Additionally, you must make at least $250,000 if married or $200,000 if single to even have the surtax affect you. The surtax only comes into force in 2013, so it doesn’t affect people for several years.

The National Association of Realtors has provided several examples to help clear up the difficulties. The following is one of them.

“A couple filing jointly with an income of $325,000 make $525,000 when they sell their primary residence. If the profit on the home is less than the $500,000 threshold ($250,000 for single taxpayers), none of gain would be subject to the surtax. But since the taxable gain is $25,000 above the $500,000 threshold, it is added to couple’s income, bringing it to $350,000. That’s $100,000 above the $250,000 limit for couples filing jointly. But the $25,000 taxable gain on the sale of the property is the lesser amount in this case, so the extra tax that would be due in this case would be $950, or 3.8% of $25,000.” 

So there you have it. The new surtax only affects people who make $200,000 or couples who make $250,000 and who make profits of at least $250,000 or $500,000 respectively on their houses. In the current market, not too many people fall under that category and the tax isn’t even in force yet.

Oppenheim Law says that there is nothing to get too excited about.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1962 access attempts in the last 7 days.