October 30, 2013
Reiss (and Others) on Post-Bloomberg Brooklyn
The NY Daily News ran a story on a panel I moderated last night at Brooklyn Law School, The Fab Four! Brooklyn Heights Councilmen Since 1975 Share Stage and Talk About Past, Future, Bloomberg. The speakers gave their thoughts on a variety of topics, including what’s next for New York City:
David Reiss: What are your predictions for a post-Bloomberg Brooklyn?
Levin: The likely mayor is going to be very far to the left. (Bill de Blasio) has been more engaged with people that are not elite and he has a greater vision of equity. It’s a big challenge because it’s a big city, like steering a gigantic ocean liner. I don’t think there will be lots of changes on day one but there will be policy changes that can be shifted that will cause a big change, like universal pre-kindergarten and mandatory inclusionary zoning. His goal is to decrease the economic disparity in the city and it’s a big challenge.
Yassky: A lot of the changes you’ve seen are here to say. There’s a much bigger swatch of Brooklyn that will be professional office workers, people who are working in Manhattan and not in traditional blue collar jobs. That spread throughout Brooklyn is here to stay. So many neighborhoods have excellent public spaces which is ameliorating inequality in the near term. It’s taking better public goods, like parks, to do it, and you don’t need rose colored glasses to see that. These changes don’t reverse very quickly and easily.
Fisher: He’ll be a mayor from Brooklyn, so it’s got to be a good thing for all of us. The nostalgia here is over; Brooklyn is the world again. When I grew up, people were nostalgic for the good old days. No one is nostalgic for those days now. Brooklyn has really reached a turning point. The bar has been raised in post-Bloomberg Brooklyn. So many people in Brooklyn now expect government to function and be responsive. As long as people feel invested in the borough, they’ll make it possible for Steve and whoever comes after to keep the progress going.
October 30, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
October 29, 2013
Eminent Distraction?
The Urban Institute posted Eminent Domain: The Debate Distracts from Pressing Problems. The issue brief concludes
The negative indicators shared by municipalities that have considered the eminent domain solution (e.g., high unemployment, low incomes, high proportions of underwater homeowners, slower HPI recovery, etc.) indicate that their shared problems extend beyond housing. These cities have traditionally suffered from lack of investment, high crime rates, concentrated poverty, and other general barriers to opportunity. These factors contributed to their poor performance during and after the housing crash, and the relief efforts to date, both from lenders and policymakers, have been modest relative to the scale of the problem.
Yet it is unclear that seizing loans through eminent domain will produce the desired outcomes: preventing foreclosures and, thus, ensuring that the community fabric and the municipality’s economy remain intact. For example, Richmond is targeting performing loans in PLS, and while the eminent domain plan is designed to help underwater mortgage holders, investors assert that nearly a third of target loans are above water. In contrast, a much wider universe of nonperforming, underwater loans is in private-label and agency securities that are, arguably, at more immediate risk of default. Additionally, implementing eminent domain will likely have repercussions in the housing finance markets that will lead to higher interest rates and down payments.(14)
The conclusion then outlines “some less disruptive alternatives.” (14) I am not sure that I agree with all of the conclusions of the report. For instance, I doubt that there would be higher interest rates and down payments as a result of the use of eminent domain by municipalities. Lenders have notoriously short memories (for a survey of short lender memories, see This Time Is Different.) But this issue brief is important because it is not looking at the legality of the use of eminent domain — others have done that — but at the practicality of this approach. And it raises serious concerns that will need to be addressed by its proponents.
October 29, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
October 27, 2013
California Northern District Court Dismissed Plaintiff’s Claims Due to Flawed Reliance on Non-California Law
The California Northern District Court in deciding Newbeck v. Washington Mutual Bank, et al., No. C 09-1599 CW (N.D. Cal., 2010), dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
In reaching this conclusion, the California Northern District Court noted that plaintiff‘s reliance on non-California law was flawed.
The court further noted that the plaintiff, in using non-California law to analyze judicial foreclosures, was erroneous and misplaced. The court noted that the law cited also did not support a claim to set aside a non-judicial foreclosure.
October 27, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
Eastern District of California Found That MERS Was Not Required to Register to do Business in California
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California, in deciding Bogdan v. Countrywide Home Loans, 09-1055 (E.D. Cal. 2010), found that MERS was not required to register to do business in California.
The Eastern District of California, after considering the plaintiff’s contentions, also dismissed the plaintiff’s fraud and unfair competition claims against MERS.
October 27, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
Eastern District of California Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure Claims Due to Plaintiffs’ Lack of Tender
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California in deciding the case of Small v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., No. 2:09-CV-0458 (E. D. Cal., 2010), concluded that dismissing the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims due to lack of tender by the plaintiffs was appropriate.
Plaintiffs filed their foreclosure action, naming three entities and two individuals as defendants, and alleged causes of action for unlawful foreclosure and unlawful eviction.
Defendants sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to state any cognizable claim. After considering the plaintiff’s claims, the court dismissed them due to lack of tender by the plaintiff.
October 27, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
October 25, 2013
Reiss on Buying a Home
MainStreet.com interviewed me in Guess the Unexpected Best Time to Buy a Home. It reads in part,
Hunting for a new home during the holidays can have many hidden advantages for buyers, despite conventional wisdom.
While there is less inventory to choose from in the fall, house hunting in November and December also means there is less competition with other buyers out there. Sellers might also be willing to strike a better deal for potential home owners.
Home buyers can take advantage of sellers who are eager to sell. The end of the year is a great time to look above your price range and negotiate for a lower price, said Alison Bernstein, president of The Suburban Jungle Realty Group.
“Sellers want to clear inventory before the spring and will be open to price adjustments to make the sale,” she said.
Consumers can find the best prices after Thanksgiving and before the Super Bowl because most home owners do not want to wait until the winter months when the bulk of potential buyers disappear, Bernstein said.
Seeing a home during the winter months shows both the house and the neighborhood in its “true colors,” she said.
Many sellers could also have tax reasons to sell by the end of the year, said David Reiss, a professor at the Brooklyn Law School who teaches a course that covers residential real estate transactions. However, this could prove to be a double-edged sword for buyers.
It might motivate sellers to get a deal done quickly and to compromise easily on price or other terms. On the other hand, sellers may insist on draconian penalties if the buyer fails to close by the end of the year, he said.
“Buyers must tread very carefully in such circumstances, be confident that their lender will come through by the drop dead date and certain that they will not be held liable for the delays caused by others, such as sellers themselves or escrow agents,” Reiss said.
October 25, 2013 | Permalink | No Comments
