Posts Tagged ‘mortgage’

How Will the Libor Scandal Impact Main Street?

Monday, July 30th, 2012

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

Corner of Housing Avenue and Market StreetThe residential real estate market is beginning to show real signs of life.

Home values have posted their first annual increase in nearly five years, acccording to the latest Zillow index, which is a well-respected year-over-year analysis of the sale of similar homes in the same area.

So we may be getting closer to a healthier housing market for the first time since the bubble burst in 2008.

But then the Libor scandal came along and threw a gigantic wrench in the works.

On the surface, Libor might appear to solely be a Wall Street problem.

There is no easy target for the populace to vilify, as there is with the HSBC money laundering investigation. And the damage done by the banks’ apparent attempts to subjugate Libor to their own benefit, at first glance, might appear to be limited to the banks themselves.

Perhaps that is why outrage over Libor hasn’t yet reached critical mass. But make no mistake; the impact of the scandal could be larger than any of the banking scandals that have come before it.

This is very much a Main Street issue. As the investigation continues, we may learn how homeowners were burdened with distorted mortgage rates.

What is Libor?

Libor stands for London Interbank Offered Rate. Simply put, Libor is the rate banks use to charge each other money.

The banks help set it, and it’s basically the starting point for lending rates, including a large percentage of mortgage interest rates here in the United States.
(more…)

Eminent Domain: A Foreclosure Fix From The Trenches

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

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

Underwater HomesEminent domain, where the government can seize properties without an owner’s consent, is meant to be used for significant public benefit.

Usually when the government takes a home under eminent domain, it is expanding a road or building an airport.

Or it is using it to eradicate blight in urban areas.

But now we have a twist in which it is not the homes themselves but their mortgages that might be seized under eminent domain.

As you may have seen, a company called Mortgage Resolution Partners is suggesting that local municipalities use it to help keep people in their homes.

They are proposing that local governments use eminent domain to pry underwater mortgages away from the banks. MRP says that it would then assist these municipalities by structuring a more equitable loan, which could then be sold back to investors.

The people living in these homes would be allowed to continue to stay in their homes, under the terms of this new mortgage.

It’s a bold idea, one that’s not necessarily new, but one that’s finally getting some attention.

Officials in several counties in California are listening, including San Bernardino County, which is itself in bankruptcy.

And really, shouldn’t they be?

Whether you like this plan or not, and plenty in the real estate community do not, how can you rationally argue that preventing foreclosure isn’t the embodiment of a significant public benefit?

It is what eminent domain was made for.

Here’s the truth about the housing crisis. The solutions to fixing it are not coming from the crystal towers or Washington D.C. They are coming from the trenches, from the minds of entrepreneurs and local officials who actually have a stake in their communities and know what it’s like to go broke.
(more…)

Divided States of America: Judicial vs Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Monday, July 16th, 2012

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

United States of AmericaAccording to some analysts, whether or not your state is on its way to a housing recovery depends on whether you live in a state that requires judicial foreclosure or one that does not.

What is the difference? In states that require judicial foreclosure, a lender must go through the court system in order to foreclose on a home. A judge must issue a legal judgment against a homeowner in order for that person to be forced out of their home.

That is how it is in Florida, where I practice law, along with 20 other states. But in the rest of the country, in states like California or Georgia, courts are not required to intervene.

With non-judicial foreclosures, banks hold all the cards. If you are deemed by your lender to be in default, the banks can play the role of judge, jury, and executioner.

Your home can be put up for auction, and the court has no or little say in the matter.

It’s like what happens when your car is repossessed by the repo man.

This is why I like to call our country the Divided States of America. There are some states where the rule of law still matters, but there are many that have allowed banks to essentially make up the rules as they go along.

As a lawyer and someone whose job it is to help uphold the law, I think you can guess which side I am on.
(more…)

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…)


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

Bad Behavior has blocked 2341 access attempts in the last 7 days.