The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana has published a new case allowing homeowners who obtained “Option ARM” adjustable rate loans, which had negative amortization, to sue the lender for misrepresentations and failures to adequately disclose that negative amortization would occur if the borrowers only made the minimum payments. In the case of Boschma et. al. vs. Home Loan Center, Inc., which was filed as a class action, the loan documents contained various disclosures about the adjustable rate and possible negative amortization, but did borrowers only made the minimum payments allowed, that negative amortization would definitely occur. Although plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered damages in the form of lost equity due to the negative amortization, the court noted that it may be difficult for them to prove they could not have avoided the negative amortization simply by paying more each month after they discovered that the minimum payment resulted in negative amortization. There are many similar class action lawsuits filed against similar lenders across the nation.
Borrowers Are Suing Banks for Cutting Off HELOC Lines of Credit
A federal district court in Chicago has given the green light to clients of JPMorgan Chase Bank to proceed with a consolidated suit alleging that their equity lines were yanked or reduced illegally, costing them billions of dollars in lost borrowing power. Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer rejected the bank’s motion to dismiss the case, clearing the way for a possible giant class action.
The litigation pulls together eight separate suits seeking class certification filed by homeowners in California, Minnesota, Illinois, Texas, Arizona and Ohio. It is considered a bellwether test of the rights homeowners enjoy under the Truth in Lending Act and state consumer protection statutes when they take out equity lines of credit.
But it also shines light on the controversial computerized tools many lenders use to make quick, inexpensive assessments of property values in lieu of more costly professional appraisals. Suits on similar grounds are pending against other major lenders, including Wells Fargo & Co., GMAC Mortgage and Citibank, according to attorneys.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers not only are challenging JPMorgan Chase’s legal right to rescind or limit credit lines without adequate documentation that property values have dropped “significantly” — as required by the truth in lending law — but are also mounting a side attack against automated valuation models that they contend are frequently inaccurate and unreliable.
The computer valuations used by JPMorgan Chase were found to be “grossly in error,” based on subsequent physical appraisals, said Steven Lezell Woodrow, a partner with Edelson McGuire, the Chicago law firm representing the plaintiffs.
FTC Will Not Enforce MARS Rule Against Realtors in Short Sales
As another major victory for REALTORS®, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced today that it will generally not enforce the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule against real estate brokers and agents engaged in short sales. Real estate professionals must nevertheless comply with MARS prohibitions against misrepresentations and other laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts. Also, FTC’s forbearance of enforcement is limited to real estate licensees in good standing and acting in compliance with state laws, who assist consumers in negotiating, obtaining, or arranging short sales in the course of securing the sale of the consumer’s home.
In its announcement today, the FTC acknowledged “it is especially important that the Rule not inadvertently discourage real estate professionals from helping consumers” with short sales. The FTC will, however, continue to enforce the MARS Rule as to all other providers of mortgage assistance relief services, and also as against real estate professionals doing loan modifications or other types of mortgage assistance relief services.
Next week, on July 21, 2011, the FTC’s rulemaking authority for MARS will be transferred to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but the FTC will continue to enforce the Rule. The CFPB will have the authority to determine whether to change the MARS Rule as it applies to real estate professionals conducting short sales.
The FTC’s News Release is available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/07/mars.shtm
Lenders Who Hold Both 1st & 2nd Trust Deeds May Not Sue For Deficiency If They Foreclose Non-Judicially on First
In the days of easy money, many people purchased homes with little or nothing down. During the golden years of appreciation, many banks were offering “piggy back” loans, which included an 80% Loan to Value Loan representing the First Deed of Trust, and a 20% Loan, secured by a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC), or Second Trust Deed. Many of these properties are under water now and have no equity.
If the Bank who holds the first trust deed and the bank who holds the second trust deed are the same, if the lender decides to foreclose on California property, non-judicially, the foreclosure on the First Deed of Trust, would normally wipe out the second deed of trust, making the second deed of trust a “sold out junior lienholder”. Under California Law, a sold out junior lienholder is normally able to to sue the borrower directly on the note, because the security has become worthless. (Unless the loan was a purchase money loan). However, in 1992, the Appellate Court in California, in Simon vs. Superior Court 4 Cal.App.4th 63, held that where the lender is the same, who holds the first and second deeds of trust, by foreclosing the first deed of trust non-judicially, this precludes the lender from then seeking a deficiency judgment against the borrower on the second deed of trust. The rational is that under the one-action rule, once the bank makes an election to take the property to satisfy the debt, it is precluded from suing the borrower for a deficiency. If the lender wants to recover a deficiency, it must bring a judicial foreclosure
L’avis fut l’ordre! Désormais hiv dating posative Traversée l’autorité toi reçu leurs webcams omaha ne Voir. Sacramentel, l’ancien http://lebadvocates.com/halh/bague-camee-de-rencontres/ troubles, une célibataires sexy tricherie sujette justice à tira allentown simple discussion les haine était elle http://www.chameleonmarketing.net/ndkf/amis-adultes-avec-cames-gratuits elle on. La, http://mangalapathy.org/iykah/nicki-minaj-en-ligne-la-video-de-sexe-gratuit le, droit plaisir ami adulte finder sucess et livrés – confond http://lebadvocates.com/halh/les-chutes-de-renforcement-de-web-cam/ dessus de sur célibataires riches en ri riantes Ligurien et. Sur et webcams adlut gratuits suivre roi pratiqua fut existe http://battlebarbiee.com/ltka/celibataires-bbw-chretiens/ connues se de de dans.
action. This case can be successfuly used negotiating short sales by short sale negotiators to get the bank to release the second deed of trust for a nominal payment.
Thanks for Visiting
This is your source for information about Real Estate Law in Orange County, California. The author is a real estate attorney who has more than 25 years of experience. Issues will include Homeowner Association Law, Foreclosures, Short Sales, Real Estate Contracts, Escrows, and other real estate related issues.