January 24, 2014
Preserving Low-Income Housing
NYC Mayor De Blasio announced an aggressive goal of producing and preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing over the next ten years. New York City will need to be as creative as possible to achieve this goal and will need to look to all of the resources that it has at its disposal to achieve it. Enterprise Community Partners released Preserving Housing Credit Investment: The State of Housing Credit Properties and Lessons Learned for the Extended Use Period. This report looks at important component of a preservation agenda: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit buildings that “reach the end of their initial 15-year compliance period.” (4) The report presents data about LIHTC buildings during the 15-year “extended use period” that follow the compliance period
and shares how some state and local housing agencies around the country are addressing the post-Year 15 Housing Credit properties. While the condition of the Housing Credit portfolio at Year 15 is strong, as properties age into a second 15-year period of rent restrictions and beyond, the ability for some of those properties to be able to afford to make improvements while maintaining affordability is clearly a challenge. Some of these local best practices point to solutions demonstrating programmatic and regulatory flexibility, new resources as well as resyndication where appropriate. (4)
Across the nation, roughly 100,000 units of housing age out of the initial compliance period each year, so we are talking about a lot of housing. New York has a significant portion of that housing stock. While these properties are in pretty good condition overall, the report found that
very limited financing choices exist throughout the extended use period for properties with modest recapitalization or capital improvement needs. Currently, the best choice seems to be a resyndication with a new Housing Credit allocation. However, the use of Housing Credits to preserve and extend the affordability of existing affordable housing competes with other Housing Credit properties, including public housing revitalization and new projects (both as adaptive reuse of existing buildings and new construction). The Housing Credit was created to address affordable housing needs that the private market could not effectively serve. It incentivized a public-private partnership that includes affordability for 30 years. In order to preserve this inventory, more investment will be required. Ensuring the physical and economic stability of these assets through their extended use periods will require innovative uses of limited public subsidy by states and municipalities. (5)
New York City will certainly want to plan for the modest recapitalization of its LIHTC properties as part of its affordable housing strategy. And it will be better to plan for it now than pay too much for deferred maintenance down the line.
January 24, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
January 23, 2014
U.S. Dismissive of Frannie Suits
The Federal Housing Finance Agency filed its motion to dismiss all the claims in Perry Capital v. Lew, D.D.C., No. 13-cv-01025, 1/17/14. I blogged about this case (and similar cases) when they were filed last summer. It is quite interesting to read the government’s side of the story now. Today’s post focuses on the federal government’s alternative narrative. Where the private investors describe an opportunistic and abusive government in their complaints, the FHFA’s brief describes the government as a white knight who rode in to save the day at the depth of the financial crisis:
The national crisis having eased, Plaintiffs now ask the Court to re-write the agreements that FHFA, on behalf of the Enterprises, and Treasury executed to stabilize the Enterprises and the national economy, pursuant to express congressional authority. Plaintiffs want to cherry-pick those aspects of the agreements that they like—namely, the unprecedented financial support from Treasury at a time when the Enterprises required billions of dollars in capital—and discard the parts they do not like—namely, the Third Amended PSPAs—now that over one hundred billion dollars of federal taxpayer capital infusions and commitments have allowed the Enterprises to remain in business and produce positive earnings, rather than being placed into mandatory receivership and then liquidation. Plaintiffs’ attempt to reward themselves, at the expense of federal taxpayers who risked and continue to risk billions of dollars to save the Enterprises from receivership and liquidation, directly contravenes the relevant statutory authorities as implemented by the unambiguous language of the PSPAs.
Plaintiffs’ charges of common law and APA violations have it exactly backwards: FHFA, on behalf of the Enterprises, has acted at all times consistent with the Enterprises’ contractual obligations and FHFA’s powers as Conservator and statutory successor to all rights of the Enterprises and their stockholders. The shareholder-Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are attempting through these cases to convince this Court, during the conservatorships, to give shareholders financial value that they are not owed under the terms of their stock certificates or statutes, and to ignore the rights of the Enterprises’ senior preferred stockholder, the U.S. Treasury. By doing so, Plaintiffs seek not only to undermine the purposes of conservatorship, but also the very statutory mission of the Enterprises in which they chose to invest. (4-5)
While I think that the investors raise some serious legal issues for the court to decide, the federal government’s narrative of the financial crisis jibes a whole lot more with my own than does the investors’. I argued last summer that the side that wins control of the narrative will have an advantage in the battle over the legal issues. I would say that the federal government has won this first round.
January 23, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
January 22, 2014
S&P’s Fightin’ Words
S&P filed a memorandum in support of its motion to compel discovery in the FIRREA case that the United States brought against S&P last year. S&P comes out fighting in this memorandum, arguing that the “lawsuit is retaliation for S&P’s decision to downgrade the credit rating of the United states in August 2011.” (1)
S&P argues that the “most obvious explanation” for the United States’ “decision to pursue a FIRREA action against S&P alone” among the major rating agencies “is apparent:” “S&P alone among the major rating agencies downgraded the securities issued by the United States.” (17) This is not obvious to me, particularly given the various explanations for this disparate treatment that have appeared in outlets like the WSJ over the last couple of years. But it may be true nonetheless.
In any case, I do not find the “chronology of events relating to the downgrade and the commencement of this lawsuit” to provide “powerful evidence linking the two.” (17) The chronology ends with the following entries:
- S&P’s downgrade of the United States occurred on Friday, August 5, 2011. That Sunday, August 7, Harold McGraw III, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of McGraw Hill (of which S&P was a unit), received a telephone message from a high-ranking official of the New York Federal Reserve Bank; when the call was returned, the official conveyed the personal displeasure of the Secretary of the Treasury with S&P’s rating action.
- This was followed on Monday by a call to Mr. McGraw from the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, in which Secretary Geithner stated that S&P had made a “huge error” for which it was “accountable.” He said that S&P had done “an enormous disservice to yourselves and your country,” that S&P’s conduct would be “looked at very carefully,” and that such behavior could not occur without a response.
- The McClatchy Newspapers subsequently reported in a piece authored by Kevin G. Hall and Greg Gordon that while the United States’ original investigation included S&P and Moody’s, “[i]nvestigator interest in Moody’s apparently dropped off around the summer of 2011, about the same time S&P issued the historic downgrade of the United States’ creditworthiness because of mounting debt and deficits.” A source familiar with the investigations was quoted as stating: “After the U.S. downgrade, Moody’s is no longer part of this.”
- In the year preceding S&P’s downgrade of the United States, two states, Mississippi and Connecticut, had initiated proceedings alleging deceptive practices based specifically on an alleged lack of independence. Each of those states named both Moody’s and S&P as defendants. After the downgrade, additional state lawsuits were commenced, with allegations nearly identical to those of the Connecticut and Mississippi complaints. Drafted after coordination and consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, none of those lawsuits named Moody’s. (19, footnotes omitted)
This is surely no smoking gun and lots of dots remain to be connected. How did DoJ get involved? Are the state Attorneys General in on the conspiracy? Why would DoJ stop an investigation of Moody’s to punish S&P? Sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
That being said, S&P might be right about the motivation for this suit and their allegations may be enough to win this motion to compel discovery. But whoever wins this round, this should be a fight worth watching.
January 22, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
Ohio Court of Appeals Holds that Countrywide Home Loans has Standing to Bring a Foreclosure Action
On October 25, 2013, the Ohio Court of Appeals in Countrywide Home Loans v. Montgomery held that the Plaintiff had standing to initiate a foreclosure action since it was the party in interest at the time the suit was commenced.
In 2004, Robert Montgomery (“Montgomery”) bought a home in Ohio with a mortgage from Keybank. The mortgage was later bought by Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (“Countrywide”). In 2008, Countrywide filed a foreclosure action against Montgomery. At trial, Montgomery challenged Countrywide’s standing and claimed that it was not the real party in interest because it did not have title to the mortgage at the time the suit was commenced. The trial court later granted a motion for summary judgment by Countrywide.
In March 2012, Montgomery filed for bankruptcy protection and the foreclosure sale was briefly delayed, but was lifted in November 2012 after Countrywide filed a notice of relief. The trial court also denied Montgomery’s multiple motions to vacate the judgment. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment and denial of Montgomery’s motions to vacate the judgment. The Court of Appeals found that Countrywide was the party in interest at the time the case was commenced. The Court further found that recent jurisdictional case law in Ohio did not apply to the case at bar since it only applied when there was a party, unlike Countrywide, who was not a party in interest at the time the action began. Since Countrywide held the note and mortgage at the time the foreclosure action commenced, it had standing to initiate the action, and the Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
January 21, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
Florida Appeals Court Holds that Service Agent of Bank has Standing to Initiate Foreclosure Action
On October 13, 2013, the Florida District Court of Appeals in American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. v. Bednarek held that a servicing agent of a larger bank had standing to file a foreclosure action against a homeowner because it properly acquired the mortgage and was therefore the note holder and owner for the purposes of foreclosure.
On May 31, 2005, Lucy Bednarek (“Defendant”) bought a home with a mortgage from American Brokers Conduit (“ABC”). On March 30, 2006, ABC sells the mortgage to Deutsche Bank’s servicing agent, AHMSI–Maryland (“AHMSI-M”). In September 2007, AHMSI-M brought a foreclosure action against Defendant and claimed that it was the owner and holder of the underlying promissory note. Separately, AHMSI-M was acquired by AHMSI (collectively “AHMSI”) in 2008 and the newly merged company continued the action by filing the original promissory note and mortgage in 2009. The trial court dismissed the case holding that AHMSI did not have standing to initiate the foreclosure action as it could not show that it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. However, the Florida Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and held that AHMSI was the note owner and holder because ABC properly assigned the note to AHMSI prior to the start of the foreclosure action and therefore had standing to initiate the action.
January 21, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
January 19, 2014
California Court Dismisses All Seven Causes of Action Arising Out of the Alleged Wrongful Foreclosure of Plaintiff’s Home
The court in deciding Dorn v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7356 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2013) concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action; the court thus affirmed the lower courts decision.
Plaintiff Jason Dorn appealed from a judgment dismissing his action against defendants America’s Wholesale Lender, Countrywide Bank, Bank of America Home Loan Services, MERS, and ReconTrust.
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) declaratory relief: fraud in the execution, (2) declaratory relief: failure of consideration, (3) declaratory relief: existence of an obligation — no creation of rights, (4) declaratory relief: existence of an obligation — no creation of rights,(5) injunctive relief, (6) accounting.
After considering arguments the court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss.
January 19, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
