Posts Tagged ‘Oppenheim Law’

Oppenheim Looks at 2011 and beyond: Foreclosure Crisis, #OccupyWallStreet and Real Estate

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

With 2011 winding down, foreclosure attorney Roy Oppenheim made a return visit to “The Mind of Money” to share his thoughts on the year that was with host Douglas Lodmell.

Just as Oppenheim anticipated, this year we’ve seen how big this foreclosure mess really is. There were numerous investigations, and a self-imposed moratorium on foreclosures during parts of 2011, resulting in a massive backlog of cases.

It was ludicrous, as Bank of America officials first said, that they would only need 60 days to review their inventory of files.

“It took them virtually a year to figure out that they were doing were just not kosher and had to stop,” Oppenheim explained.

There were several huge financial settlements offered to the banks over their illegitimate foreclosure practices, but the majority just did not stick. Judges told them the settlements were unacceptable and did not go far enough. With various attorneys general and the IRS among the agencies getting involved, these cases are nowhere close to settled.

“The banks literally got their hand not just caught in the cookie jar, but the lid was slammed on it, and everyone got to see the hand just hanging there,” said Oppenheim.

2011 is leaving us with a still unstable market, so people are looking for tangible investments, Oppenheim continued, and with the dollar still weak, Florida real estate is not a bad deal. When you add the fact that there is an excess of distressed properties, prices are not expected to rise anytime soon. he said.

Now every year there is an X-Factor, and this year it was Occupy Wall Street. It was a movement no one really saw coming, and despite some right-wingers attempts to limit Occupy as a fringe movement, Oppenheim said, there is no question the message of Occupy has resonated with middle America.
(more…)

Drug Dealer or Florida Homeowner: Who Does Constitution Really Protect?

Monday, December 19th, 2011

The Oppenheim Law editorial team found this ironic: A drug dealer has more constitutional rights to protection from the government in his home than your average homeowner in foreclosure.

In a case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court recently held that because the “home” has a long standing history of receiving additional constitutional protect

Interestingly enough, the U.S. government, through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is the single largest investor of residential mortgages. So what this really means is that the government can steal your house through bad loan paperwork and fraudulent foreclosure practices, but the local drug dealer is safe from a sniff by Franky the Drug Sniffing Dog.ions, using a drug sniffing dog outside the front door of a drug dealer’s house constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Yet this same court has allowed banks and investors to use the lower courts in Florida as their own private collection agency.

This is yet one more example of the absurd turn that this country has taken during the real estate crash and subsequent foreclosure crisis, putting the government into the position of protecting the sanctity of a home owned by a drug dealer violating criminal laws, while stripping the same protections from one who is just down on his financial luck, in part due to the banks themselves.

The English belief that “every man’s house is his castle” formed the basis of the Fourth Amendment, and yet now has been convoluted to only protect criminals from prosecution, while leaving homeowners in foreclosure high and dry against a system that steamrolls their constitutional rights in the interest of protecting big banks, Wall Street, and now Uncle Sam.
(more…)

S&P Downgrades USA. The Response: USA Downgrades S&P

Sunday, August 21st, 2011


We all know that you shouldn’t pick a fight with someone stronger than you. Apparently, no one chose to tell Standard and Poor’s (S&P). The ratings agency, which recently downgraded the American government’s debt rating, is now being investigated by the Justice Department for its role in the mortgage-backed securities bonanza.

While the New York Times is reporting that the investigation was started before the downgrade, it is noteworthy that the investigation is not thought to be looking into Moody’s or Fitch, the other major credit rating agencies. And although the investigation reportedly started before the downgrade, it is curious that it is only being reported now.

The investigation is focused on the ratings S&P gave to mortgage-backed securities (MBS), many of which were backed by sub-prime mortgages. S&P gave a AAA rating to many MBS’s, the agency’s highest rating and one that the Government enjoyed until recently. So how could a pool of sub-prime junk mortgages ever have the same AAA rating as a US Treasury bond?

Of course, it was based on such ratings that many investors chose to invest in these securities.

The problem: the ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch included, get paid by banks to rate their securities.A conflict of interest emerges because the agencies rely on the fees generated by the reviews and so are tempted to give securities a higher rating to keep the banks’ business.

It’s like a restaurant critic getting paid by a restaurant to review its food.

The investigation is looking into allegations that ratings analysts wanted to give certain securities lower ratings than they got but were overruled by business managers concerned about the bottom line. The managers presided over record profits during the housing boom when many failed securities were first given their high ratings.
(more…)

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.”
(more…)

Oppenheim Law Poll Reveals Homeownership Still the American Dream

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

Is homeowners​hip still an important part of the American dream? That’s what Oppenheim Law set to find out in the latest social media-driven poll on its Facebook fan page.

The results leaned toward favoring home ownership as part of the classic U.S. lifestyle. But there could be new rules for the American Dream in the future.

Jody Cohen believes home ownership is indeed still the American dream despite the state of the economy. “The dynamics have changed somewhat,” she says, “but people are very creative when they need to be. I know I have.”

As Alan Schneider sees it, home ownership is keeping the economy afloat. In an interesting perspective on strategic defaults, he figures people who are living in homes they own—and who aren’t paying their mortgage, taxes and insurance—have plenty of available cash to spend. In other words, government policies are allowing people to milk the system and stay in their homes free for extended periods of time, as well as cash in on welfare, unemployment, Section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid, and so on.

“Heck, I’m thinking of laying myself off and collecting all of these benefits. Too bad since my divorce I have been renting from people that don’t have mortgages on their properties that are in foreclosure,” Schneider says sarcastically. “I could have been living rent free and saving up lots of money to buy a nice foreclosed property at one-third of its previous price …”

Ronald Louis has a slightly different view: home ownership is an important part of life everywhere—not just in America. The American Dream, he says, is freedom and equal justice, not the material things consumers covet.
(more…)

Short Sale Deficiencies Now Illegal in California. What About Florida?

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

Welcome back to the Divided States of America.

Oppenheim Law has been discussing the chasm that exists in our country between recourse and non-recourse states for years. (Check out Roy Oppenheim’s Op Ed piece in the Sun-Sentinel) It now appears that rift is widening.

In non-recourse states, like California, a lender may not pursue a deficiency following a foreclosure sale for loans that qualify as “Purchase Money Mortgages.” For a loan to qualify as a purchase money mortgage in California, the loan must be obtained at the time of purchase of the borrower’s principal residence. This can also include a second mortgage obtained at the time of purchase. Lien holders of purchase money mortgages are also unable to receive a deficiency judgement against a California homeowner who executes a short sale.

And earlier this month California passed legislation giving even more protection to underwater homeowners. California Senate Bill 458 now provides that even junior lien holders, meaning mortgages not obtained at the time of purchase, no longer have any deficiency rights against the borrower after a short sale.

Recourse states like Florida provide no such protections to underwater homeowners. Banks are able to pursue deficiency judgments against Florida borrowers who are foreclosed on, or even Florida homeowners who execute a short sale. A key aspect of Oppenheim Law’s Florida real estate practice is defending homeowners from deficiency judgments by negotiating with banks during the foreclosure and short sale processes.

Proponents of Cal. Senate Bill 458 argue the legislation brings more certainty to the short sale process and is a valuable protection of homeowners’ rights. They argue that by removing the possibility of a deficiency judgement from the negotiating process, short sales will be executed more quickly and efficiently, helping repair the real estate market.
(more…)

Foreclosures to Rentals. Obama Finally Listens to Oppenheim Law

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

Taking a cue from Oppenheim Law, the Obama Administration is mulling over plans to reduce the number of foreclosed homes on the market by renting them out, according to the Wall Street Journal.

As the large inventory of distressed homes on the market continues to push a reduction in home prices as well as an increase in rental prices, the government is thinking about renting the homes owned by Fannie and Freddie.

The proposal has two benefits:

  1. Reducing the amount of distressed homes for sale
  2. Clearing the surplus of homes currently unoccupied.

These benefits would be the keys to a successful housing market recovery. Increasing the amount of rental properties available can also stabilize rent prices, which have been going up as foreclosed families wait before buying another home.

While the benefits of the proposal are obvious, it is still just a proposal. It’s too bad the Administration did not listen to Oppenheim Law back in 2009 when we advocated using the inventory of foreclosed homes to benefit communities, instead of just letting them sit unoccupied and cause suburban blight.

The Government could easily enact the proposal by ordering Fannie and Freddie to sell their foreclosed homes to investors who promise to rent them out. The investors could then hire management companies to look after the houses. If the Administration decides to follow through with the plan, the Government might actually make money on the deal and help the housing recovery at precisely the right time for it: before the next wave of foreclosures hit. That way, the market can be more resilient when the next hit comes and absorb more losses.


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

Bad Behavior has blocked 2727 access attempts in the last 7 days.