Archive for the 'Banks' Category

The Foreclosure Timeline

Published
by
kevin
on December 15, 2008
in Banks, Government and Lending
. 0 Comments

Starting September 8, 2008, California has a special foreclosure timeline for loans originated between 2003 and 2007, which are secured by owner-occupied residences.  Loans involved in short sales are likely to be owner-occupied loans from the years 2003 to 2007, which was the heyday for sub-prime lending.  The special foreclosure timeline does not apply if the borrower has filed for bankruptcy, surrendered the property, or contracted with a person or entity whose primary business is advising people, who have decided to leave their homes, on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their contractual obligations.  The special foreclosure timeline will remain in effect until January 1, 2013.


Day 1: Lender Contacts Borrower


For owner-occupied loans from 2003 to 2007, a lender initiating the foreclosure process must generally contact the borrower by phone or in person to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for avoiding foreclosure.  During the conversation, the lender must inform the borrower of the right to meet with the lender within 14 days.  The lender must also give the borrower the toll-free number for finding a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.


Day 31: Filing of Notice of Default


For owner-occupied loans from 2003 to 2007, the lender may file a notice of default 30 days after contacting the borrower to explore options for avoiding foreclosure.  The notice of default must be filed in the county where the property is located and a copy must be mailed within 10 business days after recordation to the borrower and all other persons who have requested such notice.  The notice of default informs the borrower of the default.  It must also include the lender’s declaration that it has contacted the borrower to explore options for avoiding foreclosure, attempted to contact the borrower, or the borrower has surrendered the property.


Day 121: Filing of Notice of Trustee’s Sale


Three months after the filing of the notice of default, the lender may record a notice of trustee’s sale setting forth the date, time, and place of the upcoming trustee’s sale. The notice of trustee’s sale must be recorded, posted, mailed to the borrower and others, as well as published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.


Day 145: Deadline to Cure Default


Up to five business days before the trustee’s sale, the borrower may reinstate the loan by curing the default or paying the missed payments plus allowable costs.  After the reinstatement period expires, the borrower still has the right to redeem the property by paying the entire debt, plus interest and costs (not just the arrearage), before the bidding begins at the trustee’s sale.


Although California law allows a trustee’s sale to take place 20 days after the posting of the notice of trustee’s sale, lenders customarily wait at least 31 days instead to help protect against federal tax liens.  At the trustee’s sale, the property is sold through a public auction to the highest bidder.

Contact a qualified REALTOR® EARLY on in this process (ideally before missing a payment) to ensure all options for avoiding foreclosure are identified.

Kevin

Conforming Loan Limit Adjustment

Published
by
kevin
on November 11, 2008
in Banks and Lending
. 1 Comment

Before this year, one conforming loan limit applied to the entire country. The amount was $417,000 for a single family unit (since 2006). When Congress allowed for the increase in February of this year, it was done so based on 125% of an areas median home price. The floor was set to $417,000 and the ceiling to $729,750. This temporary increase was to sunset at the end of 2008.

In July the law became permanent, but the formula was changed. It became 115% of an area’s median home price with a floor set by the government and the ceiling equal to 150% of the floor. Last Friday, the Housing Finance Agency said the floor would remain $417 for 2009 which would then put the ceiling at $625,500.

The conforming limit for Monterey County has been set to $483,000 for 2009. In contrast, the Oakland / San Francisco Market have a limit of $625,500 as does Los Angeles, Santa Cruz and Watsonville. What will this do to the already struggling market in Monterey County? For those looking to take advantage of a traditional conforming loan, a down-payment of 35% on a $750,000 purchase would be needed, significantly impacting the pool of buyers positioned to purchase.

Part of the benefit of MCAR membership is the opportunity to take advantage of market professionals who truly understand the dynamics associated with their field of expertise. This week, I was fortunate enough to be able to discuss this issue in great depth with one of our members, Linda Guy. Given the constant fluctuation of the market throughout the country, it seemed to make sense to establish a national conforming limit, high enough to meet the needs of the higher priced communities and counties in the nation, while providing a more accurate model for monitoring success annually. This in turn would eliminate the need for limits established regionally or by area, a formula that is certainly prone to dysfunction as we’ve seen illustrated above.

Buyers would need to qualify under typical lending qualifications and property would appraise locally, establishing an accurate market value.

There are rumblings in Congress that an extension of the $729,750 conforming rate is being contemplated for 2009. Whether or not this comes to fruition by years end is anyone’s guess. A legislative adjustment that would establish a singular national conforming loan limit is needed.

Your input is desired and appreciated as we pursue a dialogue with those in Congress. Please let us know your thoughts by utilizing the MCAR Blog.

Kevin

Money in the Bank

Published
by
JoeSmith
on October 25, 2008
in Banks
. 1 Comment

I have been hearing more and more conversations lately of people struggling with a perception that finding and obtaining financing for real estate purchases is nearly impossible these days. Before giving up hope, I urge you to take the time to research the financing options available to you, despite what others may be saying on their lack of availability.

Financing is available for those who qualify. Qualifying may not be as hard as you have heard either. It is true that guidelines have reverted back to a more conservative level, however if your debt to income ratio fits, than there is plenty of money available to you.

As an example, we just had a successful closing for a bank owned property (REO) in Seaside. The bank arranged financing for this $360,000 purchase using an FHA loan with 3% down. The buyer received a rate of 6.5% and a credit of a half point towards closing costs. The seller also contributed $5000 to the buyer’s closing costs and the guidelines had no reserve requirement.

Presently, conforming and FHA loan limits allow for financing up to $729,750 on a single family residence purchase. Market changes are bringing us back to a place where houses are more affordable, and now is the time to look into your purchasing options.

Financing opportunities do exist and are available for those looking to purchase a home. Consult a REALTOR® today for information on the area you are interested in and to get a referral to a trusted lending source.

Joe Smith

Bratty and Bluhm Real Estate
574 Lighthouse Ave.
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 372-7700 PHN
(831) 375-7790 FAX

Records…What Records?

Published
by
lorelingner
on September 19, 2008
in Banks, Government, Permits and Records and Salinas
. 2 Comments

The County, Cities and Water Management have failed to accurately keep track of permits.  I have spoken with several escrow officers to see if they would be agreeable to record documents and permits for properties in order to have a permanent, accurate record.   As Realtors, we so often encounter problems where a governmental agency states there was no permit for whatever.  Water Mgmt. has incorrect records (I just went thru this on a CV property).  If the plans and permits had been recorded, it could have saved the Seller money, saved the Realtors many hours and a lot of gas driving from one governmental agency to another.

As Realtors, looking out for our Buyers’ and Sellers’ interests, I think we would do them a great service to immediately implement a procedure where all plans and permits are recorded through the title companies,   Just like CC&R’s, deed restrictions, easements, the plans and permits would be preserved, long after specific properties have changed hands once, twice or more times.

Too often, we run into issues where cities dig in their heels and state there was no permit for whatever.  An example, I sold one house in Monterey three times over the years.  The first two sales had City Inspection Reports and passed without an issue.  The third time, the City said there was a porch enclosure without permit.  The neighbor who lived next door for over 30 years stated the house had been the same during the entire time she lived there.  When I approached the City with the two prior City Reports and the neighbor’s written statement, their response was “we are not responsible for our errors”. (Only the governmental agencies can get away with a statement like this.)  The net result was that the Seller had to pay thousands of dollars to hire a structural engineer, architect, contractors and pay for a permit to bring the porch up to current code requirements.

Another example - the City Inspector said the second bath was without permits, it had to be taken out.  No one had the plans on the house that was over 50 years old (the City has no documentation and the owner/builder was deceased).  Luckily, the agent representing the Buyer had gone thru this before and was smart enough to check with the Assessor’s office.  As it turned, out the Assessor had been taxing the house with two baths.  Once we got the document from the Assessor, the City had to back off.  What astounds me is that cities can make a statement without documentation - they no longer had the building permit or plans yet, were able to state there is no record of a 2nd bath.

How many Sellers have been blackmailed into paying for something, at point of sale, that was legally permitted but no one had the old records?

Water Management was a major recent issue.  The home I sold was going to the third owner.  Water Management had come to the house at the time of sale from owner one to owner two.  At the time of the sale to my Buyer, Water Mgmt. declared that we had seven wash basins, their records only showed five.  The current owner stated that the house was exactly as the way it was when the purchased it (did not add two wash basins).  We had two sets of plans that showed seven wash basins.  Without the “permit stamp”, Water Mgmt. did not want to accept the plans as a “legal record”.  Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and Water Resources and bought permits for the two “additional sinks” in order to get the transaction closed.  Water Mgmt. also showed one showerhead in the Master bath - it had dual showerheads.  We got a letter from a contractor stating that the plumbing fixtures in the Master shower were discontinued in the 80’s.  That did not matter, Water Mgmt. took the position it was added and needed a permit.  Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and paid for the second showerhead, which resulted in a deed restriction. I went to the Mty County Building Dept. because the County Building Report showed that the plans had been microfilmed.  Unfortunately, the County got rid of the microfilm.  I went to the Assessor’s office, they only had the number of baths, no fixture count.

(Mty County Building said they will only keep the plans for about three months after the permit is finalled and will not microfilm.)

My Buyer and I requested a meeting with Water Mgmt.  We went in armed with the plans, the contractor’s letter and photos of all the baths.  Showed them the photos which helped our case that the prior inspector may have missed two sinks if they ran through quickly.  We were able to convince them that (a) it appeared that the sinks and showerhead were all original and (b) they made an error on their prior inspection.  The Seller did get some of his money back from the additional permit fees and we were able to get the deed restriction released.

I believe Water Mgmt. went on the basis of the original permit application which showed 5 sinks when, in fact, 7 sinks were built into the house.  Probably what happened, they used that for their basis and just kept going with the original application document, not paying attention to what was built.

Had we had recorded plans and permits, we could have saved many hours on everyone’s part, gas and unnecessary permit fees and a lot of aggravation.  It demonstrated to me how careless the government agencies are and Sellers are forced to pay for something that was already permitted.  The only way to avoid these issues is for owners to record their documents with the title companies so there is a permanent record.  It could all be so simple.

Sincerely,

Lore Lingner
Realtor, Previews Property Specialist
Coldwell Banker Del Monte Realty
www.LoreLingner.com
Lore@LoreLingner.com

A Money Line

Published
by
galencall
on September 11, 2008
in Banks, Government and Lending
. 5 Comments

  I read with great interest, an article in the New York Times yesterday, reviewing the government’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A little over a year after the credit crisis formally began, I was struck again by the enormity of the problem facing our country. Historically, from an economic stand point I find that what is happening to be absolutely incredible, exciting in the overall scale of size, and compelling to stay alert to change. I was equally struck how it reminded me of being back in college and overwhelmed with multiple courses trying to keep them sorted by information, meeting deadlines or due dates on exams, labs or presentations it is no small coincidence that we have a college student living at home. Focusing on course and curriculum for a college student is similar to a working adults task in the mortgage business today of sorting through the barrage of current day information and subsequent timelines so as to adequately and efficiently deliver needed education to community and clients. The governments Treasury Department takeover, on top of the newly released Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (July 2008) and the critical provisions in HR 321combined, can only keep one on their toes or suggest not getting out of bed in the morning less there be more information to digest. The purpose of the legislation is to stimulate activity in three areas: One, to stimulate additional buying activity, particularly at the entry level or first-time home buyer market. Two, is to provide relief to current homeowners experiencing difficulty or who are in foreclosure. Third, is to enact legislation and standards that are aimed at the lending business; Federal licensing requirements are coming that are aimed at taking the villains off the street.

 The implications, the timelines, the mere “change is in the wind concept” is exhausting, daunting to sort through and at minimum confusing to those who might not be watching and teaching it day in and day out.  There are so many varied changes happening at light speed; loan limits, tax implications, down payment options, reverse mortgages can say goodbye to Fannie Mae’s home keeper program, HUD counseling cost issues, 1st time home buyer tax credit, mortgage insurance, changes effective October 1, November 1 and January 1, 2009 and more.

To teach, to educate and instill hope in the future is one of the hallmarks of today’s mortgage originator. Substance will outperform style.  For example, did you know that today 2 out of every 3 FHA loans includes seller funded DPA (down payment assistance)? Fannie Mae has already removed this option from the table moving forward after October 1, but there is a ground swell lobbying to keep it and this effort may well prove to be successful. Stay tuned as the changes are constant. Mortgagee letters are the benchmarks for underwriting decisions and as the letters are published the facts can hit the streets. It will be a fall season packed full of change!

Galen Call, CMPS®
Mortgage Planner
Treehouse Mortgage Group
451 Washington Street
Monterey, CA. 93940
direct: 831.645.1164
fax: 831.643.1161

 

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats