November 27, 2013
California Court Dismisses Plaintiffs Suit Brought for Wrongful Foreclosure Defendants Bank of America & Freddie Mac
The court in deciding Bergman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153173 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.
Most of plaintiffs’ claims were based on one of two legal theories.
First, the plaintiffs based their arguments on the alleged sale of the DOT from Bank of America to the Securitized Trust, the plaintiffs argued that the sale divested Bank of America of its beneficial interest in the DOT. Plaintiff also alleged that because the DOT was never properly assigned, the Securitized Trust also did not hold the beneficial interest. They alleged that, accordingly, the true beneficiaries are the Securitized Trust’s certificate holders.
Second, the plaintiffs based their argument on the alleged involvement of PK Properties in illegal bid-rigging activities, including activities that allegedly tainted the trustee’s sale for the Property.
The court, after considering the arguments provided by the plaintiff, granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint.
November 27, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
Reducing The Cost of Affordable Housing Development: Lessons for NYC?
Enterprise and the Urban Land Institute have issued a report, Bending the Cost Curve on Affordable Rental Development: Understanding the Drivers of Cost, that identifies affordable housing development’s “most commonly cited cost drivers, provides a brief overview of their impact and applicability, and includes high-level recommendations to promote a more efficient delivery system.” (4). As the report notes,
Affordable housing delivery is shaped by a number of procedures, regulations, and policies instituted at all levels of the system—each with associated costs. Development costs may be dictated by site constraints, design elements, local land use and zoning restrictions, building codes, delays in the development process, efforts to reduce long-term operating costs, and the affordable housing finance system. Most affordable developments rely on multiple funding streams, both equity and debt, each of which carries its own set of requirements and compliance costs. While there may be some alignment of affordable housing land use regulations, financing tools, or programs, far too often developers must seek a complex series of approvals or obtain waivers to bring a project to fruition. This process alone can introduce costs through delays to the development timeline as well as introduce additional uncertainty and risk, which, in addition to regulatory barriers, can also increase costs. (3)
While the report offers no shocking insights into affordable housing’s cost drivers, it does provide a good overview. It also brings to mind research that NYU’s Furman Center did some years ago about the drivers of the high cost of housing construction in New York City.
Given that Mayor-Elect de Blasio has put affordable housing at the center of his campaign, his team should focus on reducing these costs as part of his overall affordable housing strategy. Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani were not able to make any significant progress on this issue, even though doing so would be quite consistent with their approach to governance. Perhaps that makes it even more of a compelling goal for the de Blasio Administration.
November 27, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
November 26, 2013
Texas Court Finds That MERS Had Authority to Assign, Thus Defendant Could Enforce Note
The plaintiff in Hines v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153895 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2013), contended that defendants could not show an unbroken chain of title to enforce the note because MERS had no authority to assign the note to Deutsche Bank. However, the court eventually dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
The plaintiff sought a declaration from the court that any foreclosure of her home would be wrongful because none of the defendants had standing to foreclose. The plaintiff claimed that this was due to defects in the assignment and securitization process.
The plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure allegations could be grouped into two categories: (1) MERS lacked authority to assign the deed and note from First NLC to Deutsche Bank; and (2) defendants did not comply with the securitization requirements of the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”). However, the court found that under recent Fifth Circuit case law, both of the plaintiff’s grounds for her claims failed. Thus, the court decided that her wrongful foreclosure claim must be dismissed.
November 26, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
Reiss on Government’s Role in Housing Finance
The Urban Land Institute New York Blog posted Housing Finance Leaders Gather to Discuss the Future of Freddie and Fannie about a recent panel on the housing finance market. It begins,
Housing finance industry leaders came together last week to debate the future role of government-sponsored lending giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both entities were placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) during the financial crisis from which they have yet to emerge.
Panelists included David Brickman, Head of Multifamily for Freddie Mac, Robert Bostrom, Co-Chair of the Financial Compliance and Regulatory Practice at Greenberg Traurig, Mike McRoberts, Managing Director at Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, David Reiss, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, and Alan H. Weiner, Group Head at Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital.
The debate centered around the proper role for the mortgage giants and to what extent government-backed entities should intervene in capital markets.
A market failure or liquidity crisis is the only reasonable basis for government intervention in the housing market, according to Reiss. “However, it is not possible for the government to create liquidity only in moments of crisis, so there is a need to have a permanent platform that is capable of originating liquidity at all times,” said Brickman. Fannie Mae, which was created during the Great Depression and Freddie Mac, which was created during the Savings and Loan crisis, were both responses to past market failures.
November 26, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
November 25, 2013
Doing Justice with the $13B JPMorgan Settlement
I have posted a couple of items on this massive settlement (here and here). This should be my last one. Perhaps I am ungrateful, but the Statement of Facts agreed upon by the Department of Justice and JPMorgan Chase left me with an empty feeling. Recovering $13 billion for homeowners, investors and the government is certainly a key aspect of the justice done in this case. But the law can and should have an expressive function — it should make a statement about the difference between right and wrong behavior. Unfortunately, the Statement of Facts almost completely fails as an expressive document.
It only makes it clear at one point that JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual did something very wrong:
employees of JPMorgan, Bear Stearns, and WaMu received information that, in certain instances, loans that did not comply with underwriting guidelines were included in the RMBS sold and marketed to investors; however, JPMorgan, Bear Stearns, and WaMu did not disclose this to securitization investors. (1)
The Statement of Facts provided a couple of facts that made clear what JPMorgan did wrong (see page 2), but I could not even parse the sections of Bear Stearns and WaMu to tell you what they did wrong. This is about as strong as it gets:
in 2008, internal WaMu reviews indicated specific instances of weaknesses in WaMu’s loan origination and underwriting practices, including, at times, non-compliance with underwriting standards; the reviews also revealed instances of borrower fraud and misrepresentations by others involved in the loan origination process with respect to the information provided for loan qualification purposes. (10)
You can’t tell from such language whether WaMu was acting intentionally, recklessly or negligently. You can’t really tell whether this behavior was endemic, frequent, occasional or rare. You can’t tell whether it was the fault of some low-level employees or of upper management. Just about the only thing you can tell from the WaMu section (and the Bear Stearns section, for that matter) is that it was not JPMorgan’s fault:
The actions and omissions described above with respect to WaMu occurred prior to OTS’s closure of WaMu and JPMorgan’s acquisition of the identified WaMu assets and liabilities. (11)
No doubt, JPMorgan tried to control the PR and legal liability to third parties that this Statement of Facts could engender. But Justice could have held the line on the expressive aspect of the settlement just as it did with the monetary aspect. In the long run, that could turn out to be just as important.
November 25, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
Deutsche Bank Fails to Sufficiently Prove Ownership in Maine Supreme Judicial Court
In Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Wilk, 2013 ME 79, 76 A.3d 363 (Me. 2013), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated a judgment of foreclosure for Deutsche Bank on appeal by homeowner for Deutsche Bank’s failure to show ownership of the mortgage. Wilk procured a loan from Luxury Mortgage Company in 2005 with MERS named as nominee. Deutsche Bank commenced foreclosure proceedings after homeowners’ default in 2010, going to trial in 2012. The trial court found that Deutsche Bank provided evidence sufficient to merit foreclosure authority via a chain of assignments showing it was the holder of both the note and mortgage under 14 M.R.S. 6321. On appeal, the court notes that while Deutsche Bank evidenced its ownership of the note, it failed to adequately document its ownership of the mortgage, citing flaws in the chain of assignments. The court explains that the chain runs from MERS to IndyMac, then to FDIC as receiver for IndyMac to OneWest Bank, and finally OneWest Bank to Deutsche Bank; the problem is the date on the final assignment is two weeks prior to FDIC’s transfer to OneWest, meaning OneWest lacked authority to assign the mortgage at the time of its assignment to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank attempted to rely on an earlier 2010 assignment from FDIC to Deutsche Bank, but provided no explanation for why the same mortgage as assigned twice by FDIC. As a result of the inconsistencies presented, the court found “the April 2010 assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche Bank, upon which the [trial] court relied, is not a ‘source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned’ as a means of ‘accurate and ready’ proof of Deutsche Bank’s ownership of the mortgage.” See M.R. Evid. 201(b)(2); see also HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 2011 ME 59.
The court further found that the theory of estoppel by after-acquired property does not apply, and Deutsche Bank failed to prove its ownership under this theory; “the disputed assignment from OneWest Bank to Deutsche Bank did not involve a warranty deed or contain any factual allegation that OneWest Bank would need to contradict to assert title to the mortgage. The assignment purports to transfer ‘all interest’ OneWest Bank then held in the mortgage, without alleging that OneWest Bank had any interest to convey or making any other statement that could be interpreted to estop OneWest Bank from claiming title.” Pike v. Galvin, 29 Me. 183, 185 (1848); Bennett, 90 Me. at 461-62, 38 A. 372. Deutsche Bank was unable to prove any harmless error existed in the assignments, and therefore the trial court erred in granting the judgment of foreclosure.
November 25, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
November 24, 2013
Michigan Dissmisses Plaintiff’s Action Seeking to Set Aside Sale of His Residence
The court in deciding Liddell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153897 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2013) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff commenced the action seeking to set aside a sheriff’s sale of his residential property. Plaintiff’s Complaint raised the following claims: Count I, Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Count II, Estoppel; Count III, Negligence; Count IV, Violation of Michigan’s Occupational Code, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 339.915 and .918; and Count V, Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.
Defendants maintained that all of plaintiff’s claims challenging the foreclosure sale were subject to dismissal because plaintiff failed to redeem the property within the redemption period. Defendants further argued that even if plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the expiration of the statutory redemption period, his claims were subject to dismissal because he failed to state any valid claims upon which relief can be granted.
The Court agreed that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege any claims upon which relief may be granted.
November 24, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
