June 8, 2015
Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- The United States Supreme Court held that Chapter 7 debtors cannot get rid of junior liens on underwater home loans under the bankruptcy code.
June 8, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
June 5, 2015
Dealing with Debt Collectors
I was quoted by CreditCardGuide.com in Know Your Rights with Debt Collectors. It reads, in part,
Regardless of how deep your financial troubles go, you are protected by state and federal law when it comes to how debt collectors can treat you.
First off, you should understand who the people are behind the debt collection notices and phone calls. “A debt collector is defined as someone who is not the original creditor,” explains David Reiss, professor of law and research director of the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School, who also writes the REFinBlog. And, he says, what might start out as a legitimate debt collector contacting you on behalf of a creditor, can change over time since debt collection companies often sell their lists to other companies. Unfortunately, your contact information might end up with a fly-by-night operation that resorts to shady practices, such as trying to frighten you with threats and bullying.
* * *
Consider this your peek into the debt collection rulebook so that you can arm yourself against abusive tactics:
What debt collectors cannot do
- Call you under a false identity. “That means they cannot say they are an attorney if they are not, or say they are from the sheriff’s office if they are not,” says Reiss.
- Discuss your debt with your employer, family members (other than your spouse), neighbors or publish your name on a list of people who owe money. “They can call a third party and leave a message for you, but they can’t disclose the details of your debt,” says Tayne. Generally, they can only discuss your debt with you, your spouse and your attorney.
- Call you at ridiculous hours, such as before 8 a.m. or past 9 p.m. They also cannot call you repeatedly in a single day.
- Be abusive, threatening or vulgar. In other words, says Tayne, they cannot bully you by calling you a deadbeat or loser for not making payments, and they should never curse at you.
- Make false threats that they will seize your property, drain your bank accounts or arrest you, says Reiss.
What debt collectors can do
- Contact you in person, by mail, by phone or by fax between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. However, they can’t contact you at work if they are told you can’t get calls there. Also, if you write to them to stop calling you, they must comply, although they might respond by suing you, so think carefully before sending that letter.
- Sue you in court. If they do, you’ll have to appear, and it’s in your best interest to hire an attorney. Ideally, you want to work something out before getting to this stage, says Reiss, because court and attorney costs can pile up.
- Report you to the credit agencies. “Debt collectors can report your default to the credit bureaus,” says Reiss. This negative item will remain on your report for seven years, and your credit score will take a hit.
What you can do
If you think debt collectors are crossing the line, you do have options for recourse, says Reiss. “First, build up a paper record as this can help you later on.” That includes taking notes on every conversation you have, with dates, times and who you spoke to.
You could also try sending a cease-and-desist letter, or asking a lawyer to do so on your behalf, says Reiss. “They may be afraid and back off if a lawyer is involved,” he says.
Tayne finds that such letters aren’t always effective for more hostile debt collectors. “If they’re really out of line, file a lawsuit in small claims court,” she says.
You should also report shady collectors to your state attorney general’s office as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, say Reiss and Tayne.
If you do end up making a payment to a debt collector, request documentation that states your debt is paid, and then be sure that the payment is reflected on your credit reports within 90 days. You can get your credit reports for free at AnnualCreditReport.com.
Ideally, you don’t ever want to be in a situation in which debt collectors are tasked with contacting you, and incentivized to do whatever it takes to get you to pay them. But if you do end up in that situation, knowing your rights is your best defense. Says Reiss, “Debt collectors do not want consumers to invoke their rights under the FDCPA because the act can severely limit what they can do.”
June 5, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Friday’s Government Reports Roundup
- United States Government Accountability Office releases report: “Collateral Requirements Discourage Some Community Development Financial Institutions from Seeking Membership”.
- The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) released its Out of Reach 2015 report, in which it asserts that low wages and high rents are preventing people from living in many different areas of the country. It states that the most expensive city to live in is San Francisco, where a worker would need to make $40/hour to afford a decent two-bedroom apartment.
- The Federal Reserve released its Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2014, which reveals how adult-consumers feel they are doing financially. Though in a number of categories adults’ beliefs on how they are doing went up beneficially, half of all renters that wanted to purchase a home could not afford the down payment and 31% were unable to qualify for a mortgage.
June 5, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
June 4, 2015
Be Careful What You Wish For GSEs
Jim Parrott and Mark Zandi have released a report, Privatizing Fannie and Freddie: Be Careful What You Ask For. The authors go through a very useful exercise in which they break down the cost of reprivatizing. The report opens,
Few are happy with the current housing finance system that has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship and taxpayers backing most of the nation’s residential mortgage loans. Yet legislative efforts to replace the system have largely faltered, raising concern that we may not have the political will or competence to replace it any time soon.
This has created an opening for those who contend that we should not replace the system at all, but simply recapitalize the government-sponsored enterprises and release them from conservatorship. Fannie and Freddie were remarkably profitable prior to the financial crisis, after all, and have been consistently in the black recently. Why embark on the laborious, risky and now stalled process of fundamental reform when we can simply return to a model that we know can provide steady access to affordable, long-term fixed-rate lending?
While we both have serious concerns with the wisdom of releasing the duopoly back into the market, we thought it useful to set those concerns aside for the moment to explore the economics of the move. The discussion often takes for granted that this path would take us back to the world precrisis, but economic conditions and the regulatory environment have changed in ways that would significantly affect how Fannie and Freddie would function as reprivatized institutions. (2)
Parrott and Zandi conclude that
The debate over whether to recapitalize and release the GSEs into the private market is often framed as a choice of whether or not to return to a prior period in lending. For all its shortcomings, the argument goes, at least we know what to expect in the cost and availability of mortgage credit. But this is a misconception. In releasing the GSEs into the private market again, we would release them into a very different regulatory and economic environment, and they would respond, not surprisingly, by charging very different mortgage rates. (4)
I really have no argument with Parrott and Zandi’s paper, but I would note that their conclusions don’t differ so much from the pre-crisis academic papers that attempted to quantify the increase in mortgage rates that would result from privatizing the two companies — fifty basis points, give or take (see, for example, The GSE Implicit Subsidy and Value of Government Ambiguity).
I value Parrott and Zandi’s paper because it reminds us to keep pushing forward with real housing finance reform even though Congress has not yet made any progress on that front.
June 4, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Round-Up
- National Association of Realtors reports April Pending home sales, up 1.3% – the strongest in 9 years.
- A joint study by the NYU Furman Center and Capital One Renting in America’s Largest Cities: National Affordable Rental Housing Landscape reveals a trend in all 11 of the largest metro areas in the U.S., which the study focused on, of rent increases outpacing inflation, tending to not keep up with the increase in number of renters and an increase in severely rent burdened low income renters.
- Zillow’s recent research concludes that the rent affordability crisis leads to lower homeownership rates because renters cannot afford to save for a downpayment in high rent metros like Los Angeles.
June 4, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
June 3, 2015
Reiss on SCOTUS Junior Lien Decision
Bloomberg BNA quoted me in Nagging Economic and Credit Questions Dampen Bankruptcy Victory for Bankers (behind paywall). It reads, in part:
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered an important bankruptcy ruling for bankers that doesn’t, however, do anything about still-struggling homeowners (Bank of Am. N.A. v. Caulkett, 2015 BL 171240, U.S., No. 13-cv-01421, 6/1/15); (Bank of Am. N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, 2015 BL 171240, U.S., No. 14-cv-00163, 6/1/15).
In a June 1 decision, the court said Chapter 7 debtors cannot void junior liens on their homes when first-lien debt exceeds the value of the property, as long as the senior debt is secured and allowed under the Bankruptcy Code.
The decision is a victory for Bank of America, which held both junior liens in the two related cases, and for banking groups that said a different result could have destabilized more than $40 billion in commercial loans secured by similar liens.
But Brooklyn Law School Professor David Reiss June 2 said the case highlights the need for a broad remedy for homeowners who have continued to struggle to make payments since the financial crisis.
“The bank’s position as a legal matter is a very reasonable one, but from a policy perspective we needed and still need a bigger and more systemic solution to the problems that households face,” Reiss told Bloomberg BNA.
* * *
[S]ome said the ruling highlights economic questions on several levels.
Reiss, who coedits a financial blog, June 2 said the case shows the federal government’s inability to deal head-on with the impact of financial turmoil in 2008 and 2009.
“Not enough is being done to move households beyond the crisis, and it’s bad for households and it’s bad for the financial sector,” Reiss said. “Here we are seven or eight years later and we’re sitting here with these valueless second mortgages. We’re just slogging through the muck and we’re not coming up with any good solutions to get past it.”
June 3, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Wednesday’s Academic Roundup
- The Boom, the Bust and the Future of Homeownership, by Stuart A. Gabriel & Stuart S. Rosenthal, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 43, Issue 2, pp. 334-374, 2015.
- Promoting ‘Inclusive Communities’: A Modified Approach to Disparate Impact Under the Fair Housing Act, by Cornelius Joseph Murray IV, Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 213, 2014.
- How Low Can House Prices Go? Estimating a Conservative Lower Bound, by Alexander N. Bogin, Stephen Bruestle, & William M. Doerner, May 14, 2015.
- Strategic Mortgage Default: The Effect of Neighborhood Factors, by Michael G. Bradley, Amy Crews Cutts, & Wei Liu, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 43, Issue 2, pp. 271-299, 2015.
- An Agency Problem in the MBS Market and the Solicited Refinancing Channel of Large-Scale Asset Purchases, by John Kandrac & Bernd Schlusche, FEDS Working Paper No. 2015-027.
June 3, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
