Mortgage delinquencies among some homeowners just spiked, spelling trouble:
"Federal Housing Administration mortgage delinquencies jumped in the fourth quarter for the first time since 2006, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported Wednesday. The FHA insures low down-payment loans and is a favorite among first-time homebuyers. The seasonally adjusted FHA delinquency rate increased to 9.02 percent in the fourth quarter from 8.3 percent in the third quarter, MBA data show. The jump, which followed the lowest delinquency rate since 1997, was driven by loans made since 2014 and early-stage delinquencies, those just 30 days past due."
-------------------------
Well, that isn't good. Especially this part: "... the foreclosure activity increases in states such as Arizona, Colorado and Georgia are more heavily tied to loans originated since 2009 — after most of the risky lending fueling the last housing boom had stopped,"
Friday, February 17, 2017
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Appeals court dashes hopes for investors who bought foreclosed homes in Nevada | Las Vegas Review-Journal
Appeals court dashes hopes for investors who bought foreclosed homes in Nevada | Las Vegas Review-Journal:
See the post below. This article explains that the real beneficiaries of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision regarding the superlien statute are investors who acquired an estimated 2,000-3,000 properties by just paying off the association's lien for unpaid assessments, fees, and costs. But the 9th Circuit left them in limbo when they declared the statute unconstitutional. Then the Nevada SC rode to the rescue again and said the statute is just fine. I'm curious as to what is going on now. Can the investors sell these properties with clear title, or is there still confusion or uncertainty about whether the purchases by these investors can be rescinded and the banks' first mortgages restored? Does anybody know?
See the post below. This article explains that the real beneficiaries of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision regarding the superlien statute are investors who acquired an estimated 2,000-3,000 properties by just paying off the association's lien for unpaid assessments, fees, and costs. But the 9th Circuit left them in limbo when they declared the statute unconstitutional. Then the Nevada SC rode to the rescue again and said the statute is just fine. I'm curious as to what is going on now. Can the investors sell these properties with clear title, or is there still confusion or uncertainty about whether the purchases by these investors can be rescinded and the banks' first mortgages restored? Does anybody know?
The Super-Priority Saga Continues – Nevada Supreme Court Holds That NRS 116’s Notice Provisions Are Constitutional | Financial Services Perspectives
The Super-Priority Saga Continues – Nevada Supreme Court Holds That NRS 116’s Notice Provisions Are Constitutional | Financial Services Perspectives:
Yes, indeed. The saga continues. To recap:
1. In SFR Investments Pool v. US Bank, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled on 9/18/2104 that an HOA nonjudicial foreclosure on their "superlien" for unpaid assessments extinguishes a first mortgage. The bank said that they had been denied due process of law because they didn't have adequate notice of the NJF.
2. But then on 8/15/2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank that this law violates the due process rights of the bank holding the first mortgage. Where is the state action that gives rise to a due process claim? It lies in the state legislature enacting the statute that gives the HOA the right to do this. What is the denial of DP? It relates to the adequacy of the notice to the first lienholder that the statute requires.
3. But stop the music: The Nevada Supreme Court struck again. On 1/26/2017, they ruled in Saticoy Bay LLC v Wells Fargo bank that there is no state action, and thus no constitutional claim for deprivation of due process.
The Nevada Supreme Court and the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have different rulings on the same statute. So, what does this mean? I think it probably means that the choice of courts makes all the difference. In Nevada state courts, the Nevada Supreme Court is the final authority. But if the case is in federal court, the 9th Circuit's ruling is the law.
In situations like this, the US Supreme Court has been known to grant certiorari in order to decide which interpretation should prevail. Rule 10 of the USSC Rules provides that they are more likely to take a case if "(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals," which is just the situation. But somebody has to present this issue to them in a real case, and I do not know if that is in the works or not.
And the statute in question was amended after the SFR case, so I defer to NV lawyers as to how big an issue this will be going forward. The language in the amendment requires more detailed notice, and includes this: "(II) If, not later than 5 days before the date of the sale, the holder of the first security interest on the unit satisfies the amount of the association’s lien that is prior to that first security interest pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 116.3116 and, not later than 2 days before the date of the sale, a record of such satisfaction is recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the unit is located, the association may foreclose its lien by sale but the sale may not extinguish the first security interest as to the unit." So now (if I am reading all this correctly) the bank gets more detailed notice and has a chance to pay off the delinquent assessments so their lien doesn't get extinguished.
Yes, indeed. The saga continues. To recap:
1. In SFR Investments Pool v. US Bank, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled on 9/18/2104 that an HOA nonjudicial foreclosure on their "superlien" for unpaid assessments extinguishes a first mortgage. The bank said that they had been denied due process of law because they didn't have adequate notice of the NJF.
2. But then on 8/15/2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank that this law violates the due process rights of the bank holding the first mortgage. Where is the state action that gives rise to a due process claim? It lies in the state legislature enacting the statute that gives the HOA the right to do this. What is the denial of DP? It relates to the adequacy of the notice to the first lienholder that the statute requires.
3. But stop the music: The Nevada Supreme Court struck again. On 1/26/2017, they ruled in Saticoy Bay LLC v Wells Fargo bank that there is no state action, and thus no constitutional claim for deprivation of due process.
The Nevada Supreme Court and the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have different rulings on the same statute. So, what does this mean? I think it probably means that the choice of courts makes all the difference. In Nevada state courts, the Nevada Supreme Court is the final authority. But if the case is in federal court, the 9th Circuit's ruling is the law.
In situations like this, the US Supreme Court has been known to grant certiorari in order to decide which interpretation should prevail. Rule 10 of the USSC Rules provides that they are more likely to take a case if "(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals," which is just the situation. But somebody has to present this issue to them in a real case, and I do not know if that is in the works or not.
And the statute in question was amended after the SFR case, so I defer to NV lawyers as to how big an issue this will be going forward. The language in the amendment requires more detailed notice, and includes this: "(II) If, not later than 5 days before the date of the sale, the holder of the first security interest on the unit satisfies the amount of the association’s lien that is prior to that first security interest pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 116.3116 and, not later than 2 days before the date of the sale, a record of such satisfaction is recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the unit is located, the association may foreclose its lien by sale but the sale may not extinguish the first security interest as to the unit." So now (if I am reading all this correctly) the bank gets more detailed notice and has a chance to pay off the delinquent assessments so their lien doesn't get extinguished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)