Posts Tagged ‘florida foreclosure’

Tides Turning? Short Sales + Deficiency Judgment Workshop In Review

Friday, March 5th, 2010

house short saleOppenheim Law hosted its largest Free Florida Foreclosure Defense Workshop Wednesday night as the real estate market and foreclosure defense landscape evolves.

Almost half of South Florida homeowners are facing negative equity in their homes, and more than 400,000 Florida foreclosure cases are expected by the end of 2010, according to real estate attorney Roy Oppenheim.

More than 40 South Florida homeowners turned out to hear the latest legal techniques and strategies Oppenheim Law is using to defend foreclosures, execute short sales, prevent deficiency judgments and keep people in their homes.

We’ve put together a summary of the main points from March’s Workshop, and look forward to seeing you at the next free event on April 1st at 6 p.m.

  • Social stigma is so yesterday. The fact that so many people are being affected by this real estate crisis completely erased the social stigma associated with foreclosure.
  • Banks are overwhelmed. The depth and breadth of this crisis makes it difficult for banks to successfully foreclose homeowners who are represented by counsel.
  • Do what’s right for you and get help. If it no longer makes economic sense to continue paying your mortgage, your best option is to speak to a qualified attorney.
  • Don’t leave. Whatever you chose to do, stay in your home as long as possible.
  • Banks warming up. Short sales are emerging as one of the best options for homeowners facing foreclosure, and believe it or not, banks are beginning to favor them as well. Some short sales are being approved in less time than in the past. One need only be 30 days behind on your mortgage to begin the short sale process.
  • The bank is happy with instant cash gratification, while you avoid the hassle and stress of foreclosure proceedings.
  • Price is right. When executing a short sale, an experienced real estate agent must price your home correctly, and you must protect yourself from a costly deficiency judgment through legal representation.
  • Know the facts. Deficiency judgments can stay on your record for up to 20 years: Banks may garnish wages and even collect against heirs.
  • Oppenheim Law has negotiated reductions in deficiency judgments by as much as 80-85%.

It is important to remember that buying yourself time in this real estate market can prove to be incredibly valuable. The tide is beginning to turn as new laws are discussed and the economy makes gains.

Again, 97% of folks facing foreclosure are not represented by counsel. Those who are have a much better chance of avoiding a deficiency judgment and saving their home.

We look forward to hearing your comments on March’s workshop and hope to see you all on April 1 for our next event.

Oppenheim Law Argues for “Meaningful Principal Reduction” in The Miami Herald

Friday, January 29th, 2010

MiamiHerald

In case you didn’t hear, the Obama administration announced changes for requirements of paperwork and documents regarding the Making Home Affordable on Thursday, hoping to improve the success rate and communication between homeowners and lenders.

While this bureaucratic decision may indeed help a few more modifications squeeze through the banks clenching hands, ultimately, the change that is needed for South Florida homeowners requires substantial principal reduction on underwater mortgages.

Oppenheim Law has been arguing for over a year that there are too many mortgages valued greater than the actual market worth in South Florida, and merely lowering interest rates and extending the life of loans will not do enough to solve the Florida foreclosure problem.

To read my thoughts on the latest Home Affordable Modification Program changes, check out the entire Miami Herald article, “Home-loan aid altered” in the Oppenheim Law News Room.

From the trenches,

Roy

Why Oppenheim Law Prefers Short Sales Over Florida Foreclosure

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Some Florida attorneys and other experts sometimes seem to suggest there is no difference between having a Florida foreclosure or Florida short sale on your record or credit report and pose the question:

“Why go through the hassle of a short sale?”

The thought process might be technically correct, but only in a state described as a “non-recourse state.” Florida is not one of those states and is in fact a RECOURSE state. This means the banks can and will likely come after you for the difference between the principal value of your Florida mortgage and the value of your home at the time of the Florida foreclosure sale.

In non-recourse states, like California, people can walk or stay, and either way the banks cannot come after you. In Florida, New York and other recourse states the banks can come after you for as long as 20 years. The banks have the right to try and garnish your wages and bank accounts and even depose you under oath. In fact they can and will likely come after you even if you are long dead. You can read my Op-Ed piece in the Sun-Sentinel for a more detailed description of the difference between recourse and non-recourse states.

However, if you get out by orchestrating a South Florida short sale, you’ll likely be released from the amount the bank does not recover at closing. In fact the reason it is called a “Short Sale” is because the bank is coming up short at closing.  Now the Bank has a few options. They can take the hit as they do frequently, and as they may well be required to do according to new rules coming out of the Obama Administration, or they can negotiate some payment plan with you. Sometimes the terms are good, and other times they are truly oppressive. However, remember whatever you negotiate is not written in stone or blood and is unsecured.

Thus, the Bank will likely sell the Note (here we go again) to a hedge fund, or collection agency for pennies on the dollar. So you once again will have an opportunity to renegotiate the terms. And even if you don’t make any payments at all, are the banks really going to spend thousands of dollars to find you, serve you and hire attorneys to sue? Maybe… but my bet is they will first go after the low hanging fruit: the poor folks who never read the Oppenheim Law blogs and now have deficiency judgments entered against them.

So, to recap, The Oppenheim Law bottom line:

Explore a short sale first before throwing in the Florida foreclosure towel.

Oppenheim Law Looks Back at “The Year of Foreclosure” + Ahead to Florida Foreclosure Defense in 2010

Monday, December 28th, 2009

As I write this, I’m preparing for a two-week trip to South America with my family (packing my bags now). By the time you read this, I hope to be relaxing and enjoying the opportunity to reconnect and recharge.

But first some last words for the year…

It’s hard to believe the South Florida Law Blog is now approaching its one-year anniversary!

When Oppenheim Law unveiled the South Florida Law Blog, not even my own wife, kids, sibling or in-laws would subscribe. When I wrote, it seemed only to be for the invisible search engines that provide little substantive feedback.

But slowly, ever so slowly, YOU started subscribing. Oppenheim Law’s early readers commented frequently, as did our Facebook fans. You all pushed our Florida foreclosure defense team, supported Oppenheim Law and gave me more encouragement than I ever deserved or expected. In fact, it was never me that propelled the blog but the cutting-edge subject matter and helpful content. Now we have thousands of online subscribers and it’s growing every day.

Throughout 2009, Oppenheim Law found ways for families facing Florida foreclosure to stay in their homes, even against the most improbable odds. My recent appointment by the Florida Bar to a committee that addresses Florida foreclosure-related issues is a testament to the collective efforts of Oppenheim Law’s foreclosure defense team. At first, our foreclosure defense attorneys considered ourselves the underdog. But now, with so many other attorneys emulating Oppenheim Law’s tactics, the playing field is becoming a little more balanced.

The banks and our public officials in Washington undeniably let us down. They demonstrated unbelievable hypocrisy in bailing out the largest financial institutions with taxpayer money while expecting families to fashion their own bailout. The U.S. Treasury looked the other way when the very bankers who caused the crisis were paid multi-million dollar bonuses with tax payer funds, while folks underwater and unemployed continued to drown. And through it all, Washington looks on and takes political contributions from the banks. Sometimes, I think Washington is just fiddling as Nero did while Rome burned to the ground.

In the New Year, Oppenheim Law will continue helping the average person craft personal bailouts through my signature column “In the Trenches.” Ellen, my law partner and wife, with a background in psychology, will introduce a new column called “From the Heart.” Her column will address the long-term social ramifications South Florida can expect from the legal and economic fallout of this foreclosure crisis.  Once in awhile, we may even collaborate on a blog.

I’m also proud to announce Oppenheim Law will be continuing its free Florida foreclosure defense and real estate workshops in 2010.  The legal workshops are designed to help South Florida homeowners understand the tools available for crafting personal bailouts.

The first workshop of the New Year will be Thursday January 7th at 6 p.m.

2009 has proven to Oppenheim Law that the “new normal” has arrived and “Dorothy: We are no longer in Kansas. No matter how much you want to go home,” certainly applies to South Florida’s real estate and economic landscape. Together, however, Oppenheim Law will provide you the tools and encouragement to persevere.

On behalf of my whole family, and staff I thank you all again for your support. I look forward to hearing from you often and wish you and your family the very best in the New Year. I am confident 2010 will be better for all of us.

Oppenheim Law on Dating and Banking Relationships

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

Picture 6Why Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Banks Prefer…Short Sales

It should come as no surprise that only 12.4 percent of Florida borrowers who are at least two months behind on mortgage payments have entered into trial loan modifications through the Obama administration’s Making Home Affordable program.

The first date
For many who tried to get a Florida loan modification, the process is like a bad first date that just won’t end.

When you first got your loan, the bank picked you up in its nice car and took you to a fancy restaurant. Things were going great, but then halfway through the evening, dinner, like the economy, took a downward spiral. In an attempt to save the date, you turned the conversation to other topics and tried to stay on neutral ground, thinking maybe this bank isn’t so bad. Maybe I’m just too picky.

Checking out the blonde across the room
So you changed tactics and decided to go for the loan modification in an attempt to smooth out the relationship. Except now the bank can’t remember your name, your loan or number, and won’t even consider qualifying you until you are in default. You get rejected once or twice before you wise up. You start sending the right signals, only to find that your bank, like your date, has moved on. The negotiator or customer service agent you have been working with has been transferred, just like your date’s eyes have transferred to the blonde across the room.

Becoming too needy
Although commentators suggest that it is the fault of the bank’s parents because they failed to properly train your lender or give your bank incentive to finish out the evening on good terms, the bank is really just playing the odds that there are many fish in the sea. In their eyes, it is purely economical to look at other options while they are still on a date with you.

Losing interest
Furthermore, the bank is not really interested in the same things you are. While you are looking for a nice meaningful relationship including principal reduction, the bank is only interested in one thing: lowering your monthly payment but keeping you locked to the full amount of the principal. Therefore, saving the relationship through mortgage modification, while a good idea, is not the strongest approach.

Cheating
A recent study by the Federal Reserve found that Uncle Sam was the best person to train your bank to deal with short sales. Without Uncle Sam’s influence, your bank is so awful that you no longer want to put in the effort to pay your mortgage. In addition, with things like unemployment and sagging real estate values, your bank is simply not keeping your attention throughout the night either. Furthermore, of dates that are saved through modification, studies suggest that 55% of them fail on the second try. Short sales benefit both parties: your bank is free to spend the evening with the blonde as a consolation prize, while you escape unscathed from a bad situation.

Keeping that in mind, your bank has ultimately decided that even if you save the first date through modification, the chances that the second date will tank are pretty high. Thus, the economic incentive for the bank to end the date and take home a sure thing is significantly higher than the risk of going home at the end of the night with nothing. And nothing is what they get if they let the whole relationship run its course into foreclosure.

Breaking up is hard to do…and expensive
There is still a chance for a peaceful break up. The short sale process allows the bank to avoid a losing streak of consistently ending dates in foreclosure, leaving homes vacant and disintegrating. Lenders are out looking for a sure thing, not a long time commitment of paying for upkeep of ex-wives foreclosures.

Although the short sale is not perfect and the banks still don’t handle them as smoothly as possible, to distressed daters it is a welcome relief. Assuming that the banks continue to cut their losses and take what they can get, they too might find that their own losses have significantly decreased by participating.

Relationship therapy…getting help
Anecdotally both Weston Title & Escrow and Oppenheim Law have seen a substantial increase in short sale activity as well as in the success rate of processing short sales.

While the short sale will not keep a failing date together, and you will likely leave the restaurant early, it will allow you to get out from under a bad situation.

Sometimes utilizing a Florida foreclosure defense associated with a short sale is a very effective means of fashioning your own bailout; especially when you know that banks and gentlemen prefer short sales.

Roy Oppenehim Discusses Florida Foreclosure on the National Randi Rhodes Radio Show

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
Roy Oppenheim on Randi Rhodes

Roy Oppenheim on Randi Rhodes

A couple weeks ago, I posted a summary of my appearance on the nationally syndicated Randi Rhodes radio show. I talked about how Oppenheim Law is helping South Florida homeowners fashion their own foreclosure bailouts and also discussed the deterioration of the social stigma associated with Florida foreclosure.

You can hear the interview by checking out the Oppenheim Law Facebook Fan Page, or by clicking on the link below:

Attorney Roy Oppenheim Discusses Florida Foreclosures on the Randi Rhodes Show

We also wanted to post the full transcript of the radio interview.  There are some very interesting discussions about the newest Florida foreclosure defense strategies Oppenheim Law is using to help clients stay in their homes, as well as commentary on the responsibility of homeowners to be proactive and fashion their own bailouts.

I hope you enjoy reading or listening to the interview as much as I enjoyed participating.

Roy Oppenheim on Randi Rhodes Show: Florida Foreclosure Defense

Angela:           Welcome back to Randi Rhodes on the Premier Radio Networks.  Randi is out today so we’re filling in for her.  We are Frangela. That means me, Angela V. Shelton.

Frances:         And her very best friend, Frances Callier.

Angela:           That’s right.  We just smushed our names into one and got Frangela.

Frances:         That’s for you.

Frances:         Yes, it is and we’re gonna switch topics a little bit but it’s still stuff that really concerns us all.  We read a really great article this morning from the Miami Herald, Homeowners Walking Away From Underwater Mortgages and the discussion of people literally saying, “you know what?  I paid…” Here’s a story that the gentleman they talked about in this article, Andre Dukay who thought that he got a real steal when he paid $125,000 for his condo but four years later, similar units were selling for $35,000 or less. So he was faced with the prospect of being underwater in his mortgage, owing more than the unit was worth.

Angela:           Which is happening all over the country.

Frances:         Yes.

Angela:           And we talked earlier if you were listening into the Randi program earlier, I’m from Detroit and, you know, the, the median – that is the average value of a home there was recently listed at somewhere around $7,000.00.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Angela:           Which is devastating.

Frances:         That’s right.

Angela:           There’s nothing you can do about that.

Frances:         And the reality is that this gentleman had to make the consideration.  He’s 33 years old and he was saying for the next 20 years of his life, he was going to have to pay this overprice for this mortgage. So what he decided to do was cut and run.

Angela:           That’s right

Angela:           ‘Cause that was the best option to him –

Frances:         Option.  Yes.

Angela:           Apparently in Florida as a state, they have a huge foreclosure problem and we’re very honored and happy to have Roy Oppenheim here on the line for us today to talk about this and to talk about he has – at the Oppenheim Law Firm where he – they are the lead defense – one of the leaders in defending people against foreclosures.

Frances:         Welcome, Mr. Oppenheim.

Roy:                Hi Frangela.

Angela:           All right, Mr. Oppenheim. (laughing) Thank You.

Frances:         Hi.  Thank you so much for joining us here on Randi Rhodes today.

Roy:                The honor is really all mine.  Thank you for having me.

Angela:           So, what’s the deal in Florida?

Roy:                Well, the deal is that so many people are upside down or under water that they have to make a very rational decision of whether or not they’re gonna keep paying for a mortgage that far exceeds the value of their home or if they’re going to fashion their own bailout.

Frances:         Yes.

Roy:                There is an enormous amount of frustration among taxpayers in terms of bailing out the large banks that thought they were too big to fail, and people are saying, “I have to do what’s best for me and for my family.”

Angela:           I love the language that you’re saying, crafting your own bailout because it seems as though we’re the only people who are gonna save ourselves.

Roy:                You know, from Day 1, even before Obama became president and Bush was going out, we started representing people and said listen, ‘You have to have your own lifeboat. You have to figure out how you’re gonna do what’s best for your family, and you can’t wait for the ark to come and pick you up. And you’re gonna have to build your own arc and fashion your own bailout.’ And we have become literally, in a matter of months, the folks that try and customize individual bailouts for different families based on different circumstances. It’s not one size fits all.

Frances:         Well, thar was gonna be my next question. Okay so say I’m living somewhere in Florida or some place else in the country and I’ve got this massive bill, mortgage that’s coming in. I’m unemployed and I’ve got a house that I originally bought for $300,000 and it’s devalued down to $75,000. What do I do?

Roy:                Okay. You do have lots of options.  One option is cut and run, meaning to just move out, which we don’t advise.  We would either tell people –

Angela:           Right.

Roy:                – to hunker down and defend themselves or in the alternative to try and do a mortgage modification or something that’s brand new that we’re really just working on right now and that is a short refinance where another bank comes in and actually takes out your old loan but at a much lower amount so there’s substantial principle reduction in that loan and you can now all of a sudden live there again and start paying your mortgage and not be a deadbeat.  The third option –

Angela:           Ahhh.

Roy:                – The third option is to do a short sale, to sell the property at its market value, give the bank, you know, if – in Mr. Dukay’s situation you’d probably be able to sell it for $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000, give the bank $30/$40/$50, still maybe owe the bank $100 but the bank will be thankful that he did this. Some banks now and I know you’re not gonna believe this – will give you a bonus at closing for actually having effectuated a short sale, and we just did a closing the other day where a family got a $550 bonus for actually short selling their home notwithstanding the fact that the bank had taken a loss of maybe $100/$150,000.

France:           Right.

Angela:           Wow.  Wow.  You know, one of the things that’s very interesting about the changing psychology of the United States of what’s going on in the last few years, there was a time when, you know, when our credit rating and it’s still very important to all of us of course, but people are literally saying I don’t mind this being on my, on my credit report.

Roy:                I’m gonna take issue with you with what you just said and don’t take it personally – I believe that high credit scores are the equivalent of cigarette smoking in the 1950s.  I believe that we’ve been duped to believe that we all should have–

Angela:           Yep.

Roy:                – high credit scores.

Angela:           Thank you.

Roy:                High credit scores is what caused this problem in the first place.  I know it may seem upside down and inside out but if you didn’t have a high credit score, you couldn’t have gotten to this problem in the first place.

Frances:         Right.

Angela:           You know what, I so agree with that.

Roy:                I mean, it’s just like smoking, I mean we all thought that, you know, airline pilots should smoke, our soldiers should smoke…

Angela:           Doctors were smoking.

Frances:         It’s healthy for my baby.  What are you talking about?

Roy:                I really, really see the analogy and I tell my kids that I don’t want them to have credit.  I don’t want them to have high credit scores.

Frances:         Yeah.

Roy:                I don’t want them to get into a situation like my clients are in.  You are sold a bill of goods to think that you should have a high credit score so you can overindulge, you know, in credit and this is where we’re left off.

Frances:         Interesting.

Angela:           Okay.  I think you’re right.  It goes back to a time when people, you know, I don’t want to sound like old timey but you bought a house you could afford not a house as an investment property or, you know…

Frances:         Or a lifestyle choice but you’re like I can afford this property.

Roy:                I am so happy you’re saying it.  There are two trends I want to point out to you that right now even though most people use plastic to make a purchase, two thirds of those plastic purchases today are no longer credit cards but are debit cards.  Money that’s actually sitting in people’s bank accounts.  That is a major shift that we’ve seen in the last maybe 24 months.  The other thing –

Angela:           Yes.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                – layaway has become big again.  I mean, layaway, people don’t remember what layaway is –

Frances:         Yes!  From the seventies.  I couldn’t believe – you know, and it’s so interesting I come from a community where when I grew up, people would go and put shoes on layaway and then when you got – when we got older, it was a mark of being poor, you know, was equate – people equated it with being poor and that you then needed a credit card so that you could go and buy those shoes immediately.

Roy:                Toys R Us is doing a big volume right now –

Frances:         Yes.

Roy:                – on layaway.

Frances:         I think, K-Mart is too, or Sears, one of them they’re doing a huge ad campaign about, you know, hey, start buying your Christmas presents now with the money, you know, and pay for it as you go as opposed to buy now, pay later.

Roy:                But this is good and so the idea of a high–

Frances:         Yes, great.

Roy:               –credit score is bad and –

Angela:           Yes.

Roy:                The idea that people should establish this credit card so they can go and buy the house they can’t afford is a disaster.

Angela:           Yes.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Frances:         One of – now, I know that if – I’ve heard – we’ve all heard a lot of people complain about the so-called mortgage relief and, and having a lot of trouble getting through these programs and having like I happen to know – I have friends and family who have a lot of difficulties dealing with Citi Group taking eight months to address the mortgage relief and then refusing it or denying it after they’ve quote unquote destroyed their credit.

Roy:                The mortgage modification process has been a disaster and –

Frances:         Yes.

Roy:                – You know, the Obama administration had expected 5 or 6 million modifications to have come through at this point in time and they’re lucky if they’ve seen maybe 500,000 go through.  They’re off by 90 percent.

Frances:         Wow.

Angela:           Yeah and it – it’s – what can you do when you’re in that situation? I have family members in this situation.  Eight months in and then they’re hearing no, we’re not gonna give it to you.

Frances:         Right and then we’re told don’t pay it for three months ’cause you got to be in default to get this.

Roy:                It’s unbelievable and the government has perpetuated it.  There are –

Frances:         Yes!

Roy:                –government loan programs – I, I think FHA and Fannie Mae – their guidelines say that you must be anywhere between 2 and 12 months in arrears or they’re not even considered and they’ve published –

Frances:         Right.

Roy:                – and if you don’t believe me you can go to my blog – South Florida Law Blog and we have actually published those standards because we think it’s the most absurd and perverse thing we’ve ever seen in our life.

Angela:           Exactly because the idea was to help you, but instead so in this case that I’m talking about this person has a Citi Group… Citi Group bought their mortgage or whatever, they go for the mortgage modification, meet all the requirements, they’re being told yes, yes, yes.  They do what they have – they’re told to do, they go into arrears or whatever to not pay for two months, their credit rating gets “destroyed” and then they come back and get told they’re not going to get the modification and so – and then they’re told oh, the only way you can complain is to talk to the representative in your state but there’s no representative in their state.

Roy:                You get the royal runaround and unless –

Frances:         Exactly.

Roy:                – And unless you’re gonna treat this as a full-time job or hiring someone like our firm, you will not get it.  If you treat it as a full-time job, you can get it done but short of that, you will not get it done because they will –

Angela:           Wow.

Roy:                – run you into the ground in some sort of systemic way to make sure that if you get through, they’ll lose your file and the people you were talking to will, will all of a sudden not be there or they’ll be in India or they’ll be somewhere else –

Frances:         Exactly.

Roy:                – ultimately you – it just doesn’t go through.

Angela:           And they’ve been offering this new thing. So they say no to the mortgage modification and then they come up with oh but we’ve got this other plan where we’ll reduce – we’ll give you kind of a break for two or three years and then it’s right back to where you were.  Have you heard anything about this or –

Roy:                Yeah, yeah, some cases that they are giving some sort of a – I guess you can call it a moratorium or -

Angela:           Right.

Frances:         Yes.

Roy:                – whatnot and, and that’s really not a bad situation ’cause I mean for two years you can live in your house and, and your outlay isn’t as bad and in two years, you can start to faction your own bailout again.

Frances:         Right.

Roy:                A lot of this I think is a question of how do you run out the clock. How do you stay in your home for as long as possible and thereby not affecting your family’s day-to-day activities. And I think psychiatrists actually paid us the most because we assume that people who come in depressed, they haven’t been able to sleep, they got bags under their eyes –

Frances:         Right.

Roy:                – and when they leave, they’re laughing, they’re happy. They get off all their anti-depressants, and they stop losing hair, and they get on with their life.  One of the things we, we try to do is let people know that, you know, this moral stigma that used to exist about going into foreclosure –

Angela:           That’s right.

Roy:                – It’s not that I created it, I just – I’m just saying that it’s not a stigma anymore.

Angela:           We want to talk some more about this we have to take a quick break here but we hope you can stay on the line.

Frances:         We are talking to Roy Oppenheim who is giving us incredible advice here about some people just cutting and running and, and getting out of their – creating their own bailout.  The number here is 866‑877‑2634.  We are Frangela sitting in for the fabulous Randi Rhodes on the Premier Radio Network.

Angela:           Welcome back to Randi Rhodes on the Premier Radio Networks.  Randi is out today so we’re very honored to be filling in for her.  We are Frangela.  That means me, Angela v. Shelton.

Frances:         And her very best friend, Frances Callier.

Angela:           That’s right, just Frangela.

Frances:         Frangela.

Angela:           It is 22 minutes past the hour and we are, we are talking to, we’re talking to Roy Oppenheim who is an attorney in Florida about home foreclosures and what you can do and what our options are and so we want to make sure we still got him on the line.

Frances:         Yes.  Hi, Roy.

Roy:                I am still here, Frangela.

Angela:           Thank you.  So, you know, before the break, you were talking about the stigma of that people are going through or have gone through in the past about, foreclosure.

Roy:                Sure.

Angela:           And I would like to get back to that.

Roy:                I don’t think that the social stigma of, of being in foreclosure is what it used to be.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                In Florida alone, we now have maybe as many as 26 or 28 percent of people in South Florida who either are behind or are in foreclosure.

Frances:         Oh, wow.

Angela:           Wow.  That’s terrifying.

Roy:                Except maybe one other little town on the west coast of Florida it is the highest rate in the United States.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Angela:           That’s amazing.  So, really, at the end of the day, where people in the past would be trying to keep it very close to the vest, their issues, their financial issues and problems, it’s you just, walk down the street and there’s five, six other people on your block just like you.

Roy:                That’s right and I think if you study social networks you’ll see that foreclosures work like social networks. So does divorce for that matter. And that is that when you have someone who’s in foreclosure the moral stigma is reduced because you have a sense of kinship.

Angela:           Yes.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                Just like when people get divorced a lot of times a bunch of divorced women or divorced men kind of hang together, and it reduces the social stigma of divorce.

Frances:         Yes.

Angela:           So what do you do when somebody comes into your law firm and they come in and you were talking earlier about feeling like people, can get some relief from this – what is – can only be the most stressful thing to go through which is going home every night and not knowing how long you’re going to be able to be in your home.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Angela:           And, and not knowing what to do. What do you do when somebody first walks in?

Roy:                Well, first of all, we try and look at this a little bit more holistically, and until now, this kind of an attorney practice or law practice didn’t really exist.  What you try and figure out is how are you going to keep someone in their home?

Angela:           Right.

Roy:                And so usually that’s gonna mean they’re gonna stop making payments but, but having said that –

Angela:           Wow.

Roy:                – you then want to look and see what kind of culpability the bank has had or the various parties that helped create the loan in the first place and that will allow you to, to definitely give the person some leverage in trying to figure out what their bailout is going to be and ultimately –

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                – they’re gonna probably have four options.  One is they can just stay and fight ’til the end and then if and when they lose, they leave, or at some point they can try and modify or refinance the loan hopefully reducing the principle. And it’s funny because I’ve been quoted at various times as saying that it’s an urban legend that you’re gonna see real principle reduction in mortgage modifications.

Angela:           Right.

Roy:                Until recently I believed that was accurate and now what we’re starting to see is all the banks want to do is get as much money back from these properties as possible –

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                –Cut their losses and run so as much as the homeowners are running, the banks want to run, too. And the reason they want to run is they don’t want to be stuck with a property that they have to do the following:  they don’t want to pay the taxes –

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                – they don’t want to pay the homeowner association assessments, they don’t want to pay the pool guy, they don’t want to pay –

Angela:           insurance

Roy:                – the bug guy, they -

Frances:         Yeah.

Roy:                – don’t want to pay for the landscaping and they don’t want to –

Angela:           Right.

Roy:                – be responsible for the kid that drowns in the pool which has already happened.

Angela:           Exactly.

Frances:         Wow.

Angela:           Yes, especially with that many foreclosures, how could you even keep up with that?

Frances:         Yeah, manage all of those properties.

Roy:                It’s an unbelievable mess so for the bank’s perspective. They’re better off trying to figure out how to keep the person there, even though modifications is not the way to do it –

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                – But a short sale, if they leave and put someone else in there that works or finding another financial institution that’s willing to come along and lend the person the money equal to what the short sale amount would be.

Angela:           Right.

Roy:                And that’s just starting now and, and there we are starting to see substantial principle reduction just like in a short sale.

Angela:           Right.

Roy:                What I was gonna say is until recently I really think that the federal reserve and the banking system had a reluctance with keeping people in their homes if their mortgage was gonna be substantially reduced.  I’m not just talking about taking interest from 8 percent to 4 percent.

Frances:         Right.

Roy:                I’m talking about lopping off $150,000.00 in principle off their mortgage.

Frances:         Right.

Angela:           That was my next question was – do you think that there is gonna be a time that – where we kind of auto correct the housing crisis and talk about the true value and getting people to pay – having the opportunity to pay what the house is actually worth now?

Roy:                I think that is happening and the reason that the banking system didn’t want to do that is something called moral hazard.

Frances:         Mm hmm.

Roy:                It’s a term that means if you let people do bad things, they’ll continue to do bad things.  So, for example the reason they let Lehman Brothers fail was because they didn’t want all the other banks to think that the government would continue to bail them out.  Having said that, what did the government do?  They bailed out all the banks.

Angela:           Roy Oppenheim, you have been fabulous.  Thank you so much.

Frances:         Thank you so much, from Oppenheim Law –

Angela:           Yes.

Frances:         – We appreciate you coming on with us.

Angela:           Yes.  Yes, yes, yes.  Thank you so much.  You have been listening to Frangela filling in for the incredible Randi Rhodes right here on the Premier Radio Networks.  The numbers here are 866-877-2634 or 866-87-Randi with an I.  We’ll be right back.

Fannie Mae Announces Deed for Lease Program: A New Weapon in Our Foreclosure Defense Arsenal

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

As we are always trying to build our arsenal in terms of foreclosure defense strategies, we have constantly said time is on your side and that the cavalry will arrive. So here we have a new government program that may be of interest to all of us by allowing homeowners to stay in their property as a tenant as opposed to a debtor.

Fannie Mae is introducing the Deed-for-Lease Program (D4L), a program designed to minimize family displacement, deterioration of neighborhoods caused by vandalism and theft to vacant homes, and the effect these have on families, communities and home price stabilization.

Here are some of the details regarding the Deed for Lease Program:

  • Must be a Fannie Mae loan.
  • Cannot be eligible for a loan modification.
  • Rent cannot exceed 31% of the household income.
  • Provides up to a one year lease- which could possibly become a month to month lease.
  • Properties that are eligible for a DIL can possibly qualify for this program. Contingent upon successful DIL.
  • Both Primary Residences and Investment properties will qualify for the program.
  • Subleasing is prohibited under program.

Other Requirements for Deed for Lease

  • The mortgage loan is a first lien mortgage loan secured by a one- to four-unit property. All property types are eligible. Second lien mortgage loans are not eligible.
  • The mortgage loan is not guaranteed or insured by a federal agency (FHA, HUD, VA, or Rural Development).
  • The borrower resides in the property as a primary residence or has leased the property to a tenant who uses the property as a primary residence. Second homes or vacation homes are not eligible.
  • At least three payments have been made since origination or since the last modification.
  • At the time of the referral to Fannie Mae for the D4L, the borrower is not 12 or more payments past due on the mortgage loan.
  • The borrower is not involved in an active bankruptcy proceeding and is not a party to litigation involving the subject property or the mortgage loan.
  • Marketable title is able to be conveyed (a title insurance policy is required).
  • If there are subordinate liens secured against the subject, lien releases can be obtained.
  • The occupant of the property (i.e., the borrower or the borrower’s tenant) has verifiable income. Occupants with no source of income are not eligible.
  • There are no zoning or homeowner’s association (HOA) rental limitations that would prohibit a D4L.

First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit Extended Into 2010! Plus…A New Tax Credit for Certain Existing Home Owners!

Monday, November 9th, 2009

Why say it yourself when someone has already said it!  Neil Solomon, my good friend, in the mortgage industry sent me this email and I thought I would share it with all of you.  It speaks for itself. But the good news is the government will actually pay YOU to buy a house! How nice is that!

First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit Extended Into 2010!
Plus…A New Tax Credit for Certain Existing Home Owners!

It’s official. President Obama has signed a bill that extends the tax credit for first-time homebuyers (FTHBs) into the first half of 2010. This program had been scheduled to expire on November 30, 2009.

In addition to extending the tax credit of up to $8,000 through June 30, 2010, the extension measure also opens up opportunities for others who are not buying a home for the first time.

So Who Gets What?
The program that has existed for FTHBs remains intact with the one exception that more people are now eligible based on an increase in the amount of income someone may now earn.

Additionally, the program now gives those who already own a residence some additional reasons to move to a new home. This incentive comes in the form of a tax credit of up to $6,500 for qualified purchasers who have owned and occupied a primary residence for a period of five consecutive years during the last eight years.

Deadlines
In order to qualify for the credit, all contracts need to be in effect no later than April 30, 2010 and close no later than June 30, 2010.

Higher Income Caps in Effect
The amount of income someone can earn and qualify for the full amount of the credit has been increased.

Single tax filers who earn up to $125,000 are eligible for the total credit amount. Those who earn more than this cap can receive a partial credit. However, single filers who earn $145,000 and above are ineligible.

Joint filers who earn up to $225,000 are eligible for the total credit amount. Those who earn more than this cap can receive a partial credit. However, joint filers who earn $245,000 and above are ineligible.

Maximum Purchase Price
Qualifying buyers may purchase a property with a maximum sales price of $800,000.

First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit – Frequently Asked Questions
Here are answers to some commonly asked questions about the tax credit.

What is a tax credit?
A tax credit is a direct reduction in tax liability owed by an individual to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In the event no taxes are owed, the IRS will issue a check for the amount of the tax credit an individual is owed. Unlike the tax credit that existed in 2008, this credit does not require repayment unless the home, at any time in the first 36 months of ownership, is no longer an individual’s primary residence.

What is the tax credit for first-time homebuyers (FTHBs)?
An eligible homebuyer may request from the IRS a tax credit of up to $8,000 or 10% of the purchase price for a home. If the amount of the home purchased is $75,000, the maximum amount the credit can be is $7,500. If the amount of the home purchased is $100,000, the amount of the credit may not exceed $8,000.

Who is eligible for the FTHB tax credit?
Anyone who has not owned a primary residence in the previous 36 months, prior to closing and the transfer of title, is eligible. This applies both to single taxpayers and married couples. In the case where there is a married couple, if either spouse has owned a primary residence in the last 36 months, neither would qualify. In the case where an individual has owned property that has not been a primary residence, such as a second home or investment property, that individual would be eligible.

As mentioned above, the tax credit has been expanded so that existing homeowners who have owned and occupied a primary residence for a period of five consecutive years during the last eight years are now eligible for a tax credit of up to $6,500.

How do I claim the credit?
For those taking advantage of the tax credit in 2009, you may choose to either apply for the credit with your 2009 tax return or you may apply for the credit sooner by filing an amended 2008 tax return with Form 5405 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5405.pdf).

Can you claim the tax credit in advance of purchasing a property?
No. The IRS has recently begun prosecuting people who have claimed credits where a purchase had not taken place.

Can a taxpayer claim a credit if the property is purchased from a seller with seller financing and the seller retains title to the property?
Yes. In situations where the buyer purchases the property, even though the seller retains legal title, the taxpayer may file for the credit. Examples of this would include a land contract, contract for deed, etc. According to the IRS, factors that would demonstrate the ownership of the property would include: 1. the right of possession, 2. the right to obtain legal title upon full payment of the purchase price, 3. the right to construct improvements, 4. the obligation to pay property taxes, 5. the risk of loss, 6. the responsibility to insure the property and 7. the duty to maintain the property.

Are there other restrictions to taking the credit?
Yes. According to the IRS, if any of the following describe your situation, a credit would not be due.

  • You buy your home from a close relative. This includes your spouse, parent, grandparent, child or grandchild.
  • You do not use the home as your principal residence.
  • You sell your home before the end of the year.
  • You are a nonresident alien.
  • You are, or were, eligible to claim the District of Columbia first-time homebuyer credit for any taxable year. (This does not apply for a home purchased in 2009.)
  • Your home financing comes from tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. (This does not apply for a home purchased in 2009.)
  • You owned a principal residence at any time during the three years prior to the date of purchase of your new home. For example, if you bought a home on July 1, 2009, you cannot take the credit for that home if you owned, or had an ownership interest in, another principal residence at any time from July 2, 2006, through July 1, 2009.

Can you buy a home from a step-relative and be eligible for the credit?
Yes. Provided the person you are buying a home from is not a direct blood relative, the purchase would be allowed.

Can parent(s) who will not live in the property cosign for a mortgage for their child and the child that is a qualifying FTHB still be eligible for the credit?
Yes.

Can a separated spouse who has not owned a home for four years qualify for the FTHB tax credit if the spouse has owned a property anytime in the last three years?
No. However, the spouse may be eligible for the repeat buyer credit. The best path to take in any situation regarding income taxes is to speak with a professional tax preparer or CPA.

Roy Oppenheim Comments on Florida Supreme Court’s Report, You Can Too!

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

picture-27

You can make a difference! Take action and make your comments to this report that can be found at  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/foreclosure.shtml

Comments must be submitted on or before October 15,2009 to e-file@flcourts.org
Or you can read Roy Oppenheim and the law firm of Oppenheim Law’s comments concerning the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

Below is a copy of  the official comments from Roy Oppenheim.

October 13, 2009

Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

Re:    Oppenheim Pilelsky, P.A.’s comments in response to the Final Report and Recommendations on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases (the “Report”) by the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases to the Florida Supreme Court (the “Task Force”)

Dear Madam Chief Justice:

It is an honor for our law firm, Oppenheim Pilelsky, P.A., comprised in part of foreclosure defense attorneys, to provide the following comments concerning the mortgage foreclosure crisis.  We appreciate the amount of time and effort that the Task Force and the Supreme Court have allocated to address these important matters.  In reviewing the problems identified by the Task Force and the appropriate recommendations to such problems, our comments on the Task Force recommendations are as follows:

1.    We strongly agree that having uniformity of forms and procedures statewide is important to a fair and just statewide judicial system.  Thus the goal of establishing a uniformity of forms and procedures statewide is important and is endorsed by our firm.

2.    Establishing a central information source and a statewide web site to provide centralized information for all parties involved with a foreclosure is a good idea.  Our firm’s only concern is who will fund and manage the web site in light of economic realities.  Further, it is important that the web site remain neutral and not favor banks or homeowners in connection with the information provided.

3.    Foreclosure rescue scams both by attorneys as well as other parties is a growing problem in Florida and our firm does believe the Florida Bar should aggressively prosecute such attorneys for misconduct and provide an opportunity for the public to report all misconduct to the appropriate authorities; particularly the Florida Attorney General.  In addition, non-attorneys involved in foreclosure rescue scams should be prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law.

4.    Our firm also supports the critique that the Task Force made concerning the three major parties involved in foreclosure cases:  the Plaintiff’s Bar, the Defense Bar and the Trial Judges.  The Task Force had constructive comments for each group which our firm wholeheartedly supports. We do not believe that those comments need to be reiterated herein.  Notwithstanding the constructive criticisms that were made by the Task Force concerning the three aforementioned groups, we believe that the Task Force was evenhanded concerning such comments and believes that the Supreme Court must address all three sets of comments concerning the plaintiff and defense attorneys and judges involved with the foreclosure process.

5.    Because most banks typically allege that they have lost the promissory note when they file a foreclosure action and subsequently locate the note prior to the end of the litigation, our firm believes it is important that the banks verify their Complaints, if in fact they are going to continue to allege that the promissory note is lost, especially when it is likely that it is not lost or destroyed.  The amount of time and effort utilized both by the judicial system and homeowners in responding to lost note claims is frivolous and thus verified complaints will eliminate this concern.

6.    Because various counties already require mediation in foreclosure cases and the results of such mediations are quite promising, it is important that the Supreme Court implement and require a uniform mediation process for foreclosure on primary residences in all counties in Florida.  In addition, our firm feels that it is also important to maintain uniform procedures throughout the state.  While our firm believes that in a perfect world it would be appropriate for both the plaintiff and defendant to pay for the mediation costs, in reality the banks are in a far better position to pay for such mediation costs.

7.    The idea that the loss mitigation package is assembled in advance of the mediation for purposes of both the plaintiff and the mediator is one our firm endorses.  However, our firm is concerned that such information remains confidential and only be used for mediation purposes.  Thus, the plaintiff should not have access to such information for post-judgment proceedings in the event that the lender subsequently decides to pursue a deficiency judgment.

8.    The Task Force’s recommendation that a uniform information technology platform be established is a wise one.  Too often, banks are claiming that documents that have been previously submitted are lost and have never been submitted.  It is our firm’s experience that the overwhelming flow of documents that the banks need to review is being managed as the Task Force states, “on the fly”.  Thus the idea of a uniform platform where documents are uploaded for both the plaintiff banks and defendants to use makes a great deal of sense.  Again, however, such information must be deemed confidential and cannot be reused by the banks for any marketing purposes or for any post-foreclosure proceedings.

9.    The Task Force’s idea of pre-filing foreclosure mediation is a good one.  The Committee’s only concern is that the requirement of pre-filing mediation will only further lengthen the amount of time that it takes for a bank to foreclose.

10.    Our firm also endorses the Task Force’s recommendation to differentiate between three distinct categories of foreclosure cases:  (1) homestead properties that are referred to mediation and are likely to resolve through the managed mediation program; (2) vacant and abandoned properties that can move through the courts quickly to expedite foreclosure processes and (3) other foreclosure cases which may include tenant occupied or non borrower occupied properties in which the borrower has been unable to communicate with the plaintiff to resolve the case.  Particularly concerning Category 1, our firm feels that it is imperative that the system attempt to fulfill the objective of attempting to keep a homeowner in their home to the extent that a workable arrangement is created between the homeowner and the lender.  Because of the lack of communication between the parties, frequently it is impossible for homeowners to modify the loan or work out other creative arrangements, such as rent-leasebacks, with the bank other than in mediation.  It is equally important, under Category 2 where properties are vacant or abandoned, that the banks are able to quickly obtain control over such properties so that the properties do not become a major eyesore to the community as well as create the potential for urban or suburban decay.  Category 3 requires a different approach because there may well be other issues associated with those cases.  Thus, our firm believes that it is important that the judicial system acknowledge the different needs of the parties concerning the different types of foreclosure cases that are being adjudicated within the system.

11.    Our firm agrees that most borrowers are unrepresented by counsel.  To the extent possible, lawyers and bar associations should target pro bono efforts at dealing with borrowers in cases where such borrowers are unrepresented or underrepresented.  Thus the Bar should allocate additional resources to such pro bono efforts.  Currently the Bar only provides representation in the pre-foreclosure stage and has not begun actively representing people in foreclosure.  Further, the Bar must work closely with the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Florida to ensure that any settlements with large institutions such as Countrywide are consistent with settlements in other states.  While the State of Florida received approximately $21 million from a settlement with Countrywide, that amount is pennies on the dollar compared to the $3.5 billion that California settled for in a similar case.  Moreover, only $4 million of the $21 million settlement with Countrywide was allocated to the Florida Bar Foundation for pro-bono foreclosure defense projects.

12.    The Task Force recognized that over time language has been added to final judgments of foreclosure tailored to the needs of individual firms rather than the law of the case.  Our firm agrees with the Task Force that final judgment language should be limited to actual issues pled and provided to the court.

13.    The Task Force would prefer that plaintiffs not be able to unilaterally cancel foreclosure sales set in final judgment without explanation thereby not squandering limited judicial resources.  Our firm takes no position on that recommendation in light of the fact that such cancellations may help the individual families by providing them additional time to stay in their home.

14.    Finally our firm agrees wholeheartedly with the Task Force’s recommendation that judges receive special judicial education concerning foreclosure cases.  In fact, the Florida Bar should coordinate with the judiciary to ensure that such education is fair and unbiased and provides the judges with an understanding of Florida law as it relates to judicial foreclosure, as well as taking notice of judicial and legal activities that are occurring in other jurisdictions that may be important to cases of first impression in the State of Florida.

Once again, our firm commends the efforts of the Supreme Court and the Task Force in addressing a matter of such great public urgency.

Sincerely,

Roy D. Oppenheim

RDO/gs

The New Normal… NYT Reports: Expect Four Million More Foreclosures Despite Obama’s Mortgage Modification Policy

Friday, October 9th, 2009

In today’s New York Times (10/9/09) the lead story in the Business section is: “In Trial Phase, Mortgage Bills Fall for 500,000. Is that supposed to be good news or news at all? I am not sure. I guess it depends on whether you think the glass is half full or half empty.

The reality is that by now the Obama administration had anticipated (or promised) about 5 million modifications: not 10 percent of that number!

So the real news is that Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s and one of the top real estate prognosticators in the US is fully anticipating another 4 million foreclosures, as reported in the article today. Now I call that News. That’s right four million! Thus, one can expect at least 35% of those foreclosures to occur right here in Florida.

Further Peter Goodman, the NYT’s reporter failed to actually discuss the percentage decrease that occurs s in modifications or whether there was material principal reduction to date. Well I will tell you: the average successful mortgage modification is between 20%-22%. Little if any principal is reduced. Thus we can anticipate that many of these half million modifications will become part of the 4 million in foreclosure. In fact, based on prior studies, modifications without principal reduction lead to foreclosure half the time.

So don’t expect real estate values to start increasing any time soon as long as folks keep losing their homes. Yes, the economy is no longer in free fall and things are better than last fall: Stock market is rising, retail sales have stopped falling and job losses are decreasing. However, until people are employed and can afford their houses payments again and there are meaningful principal reduction or forbearance of underwater equity nothing much will change. The folks who brought us this mess: the politicians and regulators in Washington, the “bright minds” on Wall Street and the banks, will have to first realize that keeping people in their homes is better for them and for the rest of us too. Welcome to the New Normal.

From Deep in the Trenches,

Roy Oppenheim