Foreclosure Defense

Ben Hillard of Castle Law Group to Speak at the September 27, 2011 Pinellas Realtor Organization Meeting

Former banker turned foreclosure defense attorney, Ben Hillard, will be the featured speaker at the Pinellas Realtor Organization (“PRO”) September 27, 2011 meeting.  The event runs from 10:00 am to noon.  Ben is a foreclosure defense attorney with Castle Law Group, P.A.  Ben has conducted loan acquisitions work for Ocwen, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs and other lenders.  Ben Hillard’s topic is “How Lenders Make Decisions Concerning Short Sales, Foreclosure, and other Loan Workout Options”. The format for the presentation will be lecture, follow by a question and answer period.

FORMER BANKER TURNED FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER

Benjamin “Ben” Hillard, Esq., JD/MBA

I have spent most of my career as an investment banker and consultant conducting residential and commercial loan acquisitions due diligence; essentially buying loans from other banks. I’ve conducted loan purchase due diligence on literally billions of dollars of loans and have worked for Ocwen, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide and many other institutional lenders conducting loan-level acquisitions due diligence.  I have first-hand knowledge of: how Bank “A” buys loans from Bank “B”; individual loan analysis and portfolio pricing strategies; and put-back or repurchase provisions of loan purchase contracts. I have also been through Countrywide’s forensic loan fraud training. Finally, I maintain a Florida real estate broker’s license and I am a former Florida licensed real estate appraiser and title agent. I can’t imagine there is anyone better prepared to render advice and litigate mortgage loan issues.

Ben Hillard As Featured In WSJ & Bloomberg

Our average client is probably $150,000.00 upside-down in a primary residence or an investment property.  Our client base includes lawyers, banking executives, mortgage brokers, investment managers, real estate brokers and other business executives. The litigation goal of the vast majority of our clients is to get the lender to refrain from pursuing a deficiency judgment (cancel the promissory note) in exchange for surrendering the property or its equivalent value via final judgment, deed-in-lieu or short sale.

I also accept speaking engagements, and, over the past twelve months, have spoken at the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors (“GTAR”), the Mid-Pinellas Chamber, RBC Bank, and The Board Tampa Bay. Topics included: “The Financial and Banking Crisis”, “How Banks Make Decisions Concerning Upside-Down Loans”, and “The Statistical Correlation between Average Incomes and Average Home Prices”.

Castle Law Group Principal, Ben Hillard to Speak at June 28, 2011 GTAR Meeting

The Greater Tampa Association of Realtors (“GTAR”) is featuring Benjamin “Ben” Hillard at their June 28, 2011 meeting. Ben is a former banker turned foreclosure defense attorney with Castle Law Group, P.A. Ben has conducted loan acquisitions work for Ocwen, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide and a number of other lenders. Mr. Hillard’s topic is “How Lenders Make Decisions Concerning Short Sales, Foreclosure, and other Loan Workout Options”. The format for the presentation will be lecture, follow by a question and answer period. More than 100 people are registered so far.

How Long Will It Take to Resolve a Foreclosure Suit?

How long will it take to resolve a foreclosure suit? How long will it take to attempt to accomplish reasonable foreclosure defense litigation objectives? On average, our office has historically seen the process take around 18 months from the filing of a suit to resolution of the same. A side effect of defending a foreclosure suit is time. Time is often your friend. The longer the foreclosure suit takes, the more pain the lender suffers, and the more likely the lender will realize that it should cut a deal. We are also seeing increases in the time involved in attempting to resolve a foreclosure suit by short sale in that the lender appears to believe that it can get more for the property by taking it back and selling it themselves, than what short sale purchasers are willing to pay. On top of this, the lender’s decision-making is greatly dependent upon or primarily driven by what works out best for the lender’s balance sheet. Such factors often include, how the loan was financed by the lender, what the lender paid for the loan, whether there is mortgage insurance, what triggers the mortgage insurance to take effect, etc. These internal lender factors often change so that what works one month or one quarter, does not work next month, and vice versa. In all of this, don’t loose sight of the primary goal, the reason to defend a foreclosure suit is to get an agreement with the lender to refrain from pursuing a deficiency judgment / to cancel the promissory note in exchange for the property or its equivalent value through a short sale, assuming the borrower is upside-down in the property.

Another set of factors that contribute to the length of time involved in resolving a foreclosure suit is that court system is clogged and that the plaintiff, “the lender” in a foreclosure suit, is largely responsible for the pace of the litigation. When the attorney for the lender, or the in-house attorney for the lender is ready to deal with a file or has recently reviewed a file, that is the time that deals are struck.

A recent development that concerns the time involved in resolving a foreclosure suit is the implosion of several firms that represent the lenders; David Stern’s office and now Ben-Ezra & Katz. This not only causes problems for those cases that are no longer going to be handled by those firms, but the foreclosure cases pulled from these firms must be sent elsewhere. We have a number of files that have sat for six or eight months awaiting new counsel to appear on behalf of the lender. It also takes time for the remaining foreclosure plaintiffs firms to ramp up, hire attorneys and staff, and to figure out the status of the cases recently transferred to the new firm. All these factors will certainly contribute to longer timelines in the foreclosure defense arena going forward.

Castle Law Group Featured on Wall Street Journal Website

Benjamin Hillard, one of the principals of Castle Law Group PA was featured in an WSJ.com article about bankers how have left the banking industry.  Benjamin was featured with five other individuals who have left the banking industry to set out on their own.

They Left the Bank, But Not the Customers
After The Financial Crisis, Six Bankers Who Have Moved On

Please note that the above link will only be available for a few days to non-subscribers of the Wall Street Journal.

Negotiating with Lenders on upside down properties

Anyone who has tried to negotiate with their lender knows that the lenders are fully staffed with well-qualified, English-speaking decision-makers. On a percentage basis, our clients, and even our firm, prior to the initiation of a foreclosure suit, has had very little success dealing directly with lenders. It seems that the lender simply cannot afford to employ a sufficient number of decision makers, but instead employs several policy-makers who then instruct gnomes on phones – sorry, too Dr. Suessesq?

Our firm’s success, in avoiding deficiency judgments, typically comes from negotiating with the lender’s attorneys inside the scope of aggressively defending a foreclosure suit. After gaining some leverage defending a foreclosure suit, where the lenders own attorney advises the lender to take a certain course of action, the lender is much more likely to listen. In other words, the lender’s attorneys have the ear of decision-makers inside the lender’s offices.

By comparison, the lender’s policy makers make policy based on the lender’s balance sheet that particular quarter. This brings up another point, it is likely not important who hands the lender a short sale or loan mod package, outside the scope of foreclosure litigation, the lender’s balance sheet controls the decision-making.

Castle Law Group Principal Quoted in Bloomberg

Benjamin Hillard, one of the principals of Castle Law Group PA was quoted in the following Bloomberg new article: Lenders Pursue Mortgage Payoffs Long After Homeowners Default
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=aIf_vUQZFt.s

Short Sale Approval Letters: The Last Word in

Lender’s short sale approval letters often lack specific language clarifying whether or not the lender is going to forgive the debt, cancel the promissory note or otherwise refrain from pursuing a deficiency judgment in association with a short sale. A vague short sale approval letter is typical when dealing with the lender directly, outside the scope of aggressively defending a foreclosure suit. However, following the initiation of a foreclosure suit, [when the lender has an attorney] settlement agreements are often done between the borrower’s and lender’s attorneys that clarify whether the lender will refrain from pursuing a deficiency judgment. When the lender does not utilize an attorney, the lender typically goes with a one size fits all solution. The lender’s representatives are simply told by management, the terms are what they are, and they cannot be modified.

Inside the scope of aggressively defending a foreclosure suit however, settlement agreements negotiated between borrowers and lender’s attorneys specifically spell out, or should spell out the rights and duties of the parties following a short sale. In fact, one of the best reasons to employ a foreclosure defense attorney is to attempt to avoid a deficiency judgment altogether. If you do not defend a foreclosure suit, the lender could go unopposed to get a deficiency judgment. Another reason to employ a foreclosure defense attorney is to put affirmative defenses in place within the foreclosure suit to help avoid the deficiency later if lender attempts to pursue a deficiency judgment following a short sale or foreclosure. Finally, there is a huge value associated with knowing, with some degree of certainty, that you will not be sued or harassed for a deficiency following foreclosure or short sale. It is still amazing to me how few foreclosure suits are ever defended. A foreclosure suit is likely the largest lawsuit the average person will face their entire life, and yet, the vast majority of foreclosure defendants never consult a single attorney, let alone getting a second and third opinion from several attorneys.

Back to short sale approval letters. In looking at the approval letter itself, there are often positives and negatives concerning whether the lender would try to sue you or otherwise pursue other collection efforts concerning a balance owed or a deficiency following a short-sale. Where the lender uses the term “discounted payoff,” when I was in banking, I understood this to mean that the lender was resolving an obligation for less than the face value of the obligation. It is also helpful where the lender agrees to execute a “full satisfaction and release of mortgage”. While the promissory note is the operative document that establishes the debt or obligation itself, the particular wording used in a satisfaction of mortgage could be evidence of a lender’s intent to forgive a deficiency.

Other paragraphs found in short sale approval letters could prove to be problematic for borrowers. Many short sale approval letters contain a statement that “Except as stated above, all provisions of the Note …. shall remain in full force and effect.” This same paragraph is often found in short sale approval letters that state that the short sale is approved as a “discounted payoff”. This statement is clearly inconsistent with the idea of a “discounted payoff”.

We do not currently know of any clear-cut case law that defines the term “discounted payoff”. If an appellate court undertakes to define the term “discounted payoff”, it would likely be sending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars one direction or another.

Lenders intentionally create vague short sale approval letters so that they can sell the opportunity to pursue a deficiency balance against XYZ borrower to collection companies. Deficiency balances that remain following a short sale are an opportunity for a collection company to make some money dialing for dollars. Collection company’s purchase these opportunities to pursue a deficiency against you / opportunity to sue on the promissory note itself. Such a sale or collection efforts could occur immediately following a short sale or foreclosure or years later. Such opportunities to pursue deficiency balances are often sold in bulk for pennies on the dollar. If you find yourself being pursued for a deficiency balance following a short sale or foreclosure, you should speak with a competent attorney.

One thing I would like to mention here is that a large portion of the leverage that borrowers possess is their ownership of the property and their ability to deed the property to a person who is willing to pay the lender something for the property in a short sale transaction. Ownership of the property gives standing to defend a foreclosure suit. Following foreclosure or short sale, this leverage is gone. The borrower should utilize such leverage while its available, prior to being defaulted in foreclosure suit.

I would also encourage borrower facing a deficiency balance to refrain from attempting to clean up your credit rating following a short sale or foreclosure. When I was in the lending business, we purchased opportunities to pursue deficiency balances along with other loans and assets. As such, we rarely pursued people with low credit scores – it would have likely been throwing good money after bad.

In short, if you choose to close on the sale of your property in a short sale transaction under a vague short sale approval letter, you will likely face collection efforts ranging from dialing for dollars to a full-blown suit bases on the promissory note. Speak to a lawyer before deciding. For that matter, speak to a lawyer before missing that first payment. There are a few things that borrowers can do prior to missing that first payment that could eliminate or go a long way towards preventing the lender from pursuing a deficiency balance.

Finally, there is some value to you in a vague letter that would appear to let you off the hook. A vague letter cuts both ways. There is also value in being rid of an upside-down property. There are also no guarantees of permanently resolving the deficiency judgment issue inside of the foreclosure suit. However, your success rate will likely go up exponentially where you engage competent legal counsel.

Cutting Deals with the Bank

Undercapitalized or Upside Down Lenders Provide Greater Opportunities

for Borrowers Facing Foreclosure to Cut Deals

According to an article in the South Florida Business Journal, Florida is tied with Georgia and Illinois for having the most banks in the nation with major capital shortfalls according to a study by The Street.com ratings and SNL Financial.

Where lenders and banks are under capitalized, borrowers have greater opportunities to cut deals with lenders on upside down properties.  There are many reasons why undercapitalized banks and lenders present better opportunities for borrowers to cut deals.

First, undercapitalized lenders often do not have sufficient staff or resources to participate in highly structured loan workout programs.  In other words, undercapitalized lenders often have more flexibility to consider a wider range of loan workout proposals.

Second, because there is often less formal internal structure, undercapitalized lenders may be more likely to take the borrowers individual circumstances into account when making loan resolution decisions.

Third, Florida foreclosure defense attorneys have an easier time defending foreclosure suits by lenders or banks that have been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”), or by another bank in lieu of government takeover.  Initially, after a loan is transferred to a new owner/entity, it often takes several months for the new owner/entity to get up to speed on the loan or foreclosure status.  Secondarily, after such an acquisition, the risk profile of the assets [loans] should shift in the direction of market value.  In other words, if a new entity owns the loan, it should have acquired the loan at a significant discount, giving the new/current owner of the loan more flexibility to cut a deal with the borrower to resolve a contested foreclosure.  Finally, Florida foreclosure defense attorneys have an easier time defending foreclosure suits where the loan has changed hands one or more times.  Where a loan has changed hands several times, discovery becomes more complex, assignments may be missing, original documents could be lost, authority to foreclose may become unclear.

Therefore, the banks pain becomes the borrower’s gain.

Mandatory Mediation in Florida

The August 17, 2009, Associated Press article in the OnlineWSJ.com indicates that the Florida foreclosure task force has recommended to the Florida Supreme Court that mediation be required prior to foreclosure of a primary residences in Florida.    The task force also recommended that the lenders foot the bill for costs associated with mediation.

While the idea of state-wide mandatory mediation for primary residence foreclosures is good one, it may be impractical.

First, upon motion or request by a homeowner, judges often require mediation prior to a trial. Therefore, if there are true issues to be discussed, it is likely the judge will order mediation anyway.

Second, judges should have the discretion to handle each individual case as they see fit. For example, often the owners are nowhere to be found and cannot even be reached to schedule a mediation.  In other cases, where the borrower has absolutely no income, no equity or does not care about trying to avoid a deficiency judgment, mediation is an exercise in futility.

Third, it is important to note the timing of when mandatory mediation would occur. As I understand the recommendation, mediation would occur after the foreclosure suit is filed, and after the parties are served, giving the court jurisdiction to order such a mediation.

Finally, and most importantly, by the time the foreclosure suit if filed, many homeowners have already given up and moved out.  The vast majority of foreclosure suits [greater than 90%] are never defended.  Often homeowners don’t truly understand that a foreclosure suit is a real lawsuit. Where the summons gives the homeowner 20-days to respond the complaint, the homeowner should talk to an attorney.  I can’t tell you how many people Castle Law Group has turned away because they failed to respond to the foreclosure complaint within the time allotted and were subsequently defaulted.

What is needed, far more than mandatory mediation, is an educated public. Homeowners need to be informed of their rights.  Avoiding a deficiency judgment, or getting the lender to modify a loan, are legitimate foreclosure defense litigation goals.  Homeowners simply need to be advised to see an attorney when they are served with a foreclosure complaint, or any lawsuit for that matter.