Category Archives: Real Estate

Foreclosures, The Good and The Bad

Former mortgage company Countrywide Home Loans failed because of their risky mortgage practices and was taken over by Bank of America
Former mortgage company Countrywide Home Loans failed because of their risky mortgage practices and was taken over by Bank of America

The good and bad of foreclosures is a mixed bag.  The bad is that banks which pushed these risky loans are going to take a bath.  The bad is that people who are being foreclose on either because of being tricked into a bad loan or loss of income, are going to have bad credit ratings.

The good is that those people who have lost their homes will now have more money to spend.

According to the Wall Street Journal

“Analysts at Deutsche Bank Securities expect 21 million U.S. households to end up owing more on their mortgages than their homes are worth by the end of 2010. If one in five of those households defaults, the losses to banks and investors could exceed $400 billion. As a proportion of the economy, that’s roughly equivalent to the losses suffered in the savings-and-loan debacle of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The flip side of those losses, though, is massive debt relief that can help offset the pain of rising unemployment and put cash in consumers’ pockets.

For the 4.8 million U.S. households that data provider LPS Applied Analytics estimates haven’t paid their mortgages in at least three months, the added cash flow could amount to about $5 billion a month — an injection that in the long term could be worth more than the tax breaks in the Obama administration’s economic-stimulus package.

“It’s a stealth stimulus,” says Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics, a consulting firm specializing in real estate and the California economy. “The quicker these people shed their debts, the faster the economy is going to heal and move forward again.”

So as everything in life, there is the good and the bad, what do you think?

Extreme Makeover:Home Edition Family Faces Foreclosure

Wofford's Home
Wofford's Home

The team from ABC’s heartwarming and popular reality series “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” may give worthy families a whole new house. But yet another family who appeared on the show learned that they don’t guarantee you’ll keep that house forever.

 The Wofford family of Encinitas, California, got their house from the show five years ago, but now claim that after struggling for two years to pay their bills, they’re facing foreclosure . Dr. Brian Wofford, a widower and father of eight, explained the crisis, telling 10News: “A lot of people think when you get the house, you get the mortgage. Well, you don’t.”

Wofford’s wife, Theresa, died in 2000, and the new home helped the family move on.

“It’s been a great, great blessing,” said Wofford

 For the past two years, the Woffords have been fighting just to live in their home.

The family — 8 kids and dad, Dr. Brian Wofford — is still happy despite the prospect of losing their home.

 

However, the blessing turned into a nightmare two years ago when the mortgage crisis that crippled millions of Americans also hit the Woffords. Their mortgage adjusted and Wofford’s chiropractic clinic was not making enough. 

The Woffords aren’t the first family featured on the show to face serious financial problems after their home makeover. The Harper family of Atlanta, who received the show’s biggest house to date, along with the money to pay taxes on it for 25 years, famously faced foreclosure last year after taking out an ill-advised $450,000 loan using the house as equity. And at least four other “Extreme Makeover” recipient families have had to sell or lose the homes they won on the show. ABC is probably considering changing the show’s rules (maybe the houses don’t need to be quite so lavish, for example) to help avoid such disasters in the future.

 However, there’s still hope for the Woffords. Loan modification papers are being promised by their bank, OneWest, next week. If they don’t go through, the house will be auctioned by the bank in two weeks, but Dr. Wofford is optimistic about his family’s future: “If I have my family and I live in a tent, I’m in good shape. Better be a big tent though.

Banks Are Still Flakes When it Comes to Loan Modifications

bank

According to the U.S. Treasury Department only 4 percent of home owners who signed up for loan modifications — fewer than 31,000– had received them by the end of November,

Of the largest lenders, Bank of America Corp. had the worst results. It completed a total of 98 modifications. With 7,100, GMAC Mortgage completed the most.

Lenders have blamed their lack of success in part on the failure of borrowers to complete the paperwork necessary for the process.

So lenders are blaming home owners? Well, I don’t think so. I think the banks don’t really care about doing loan modifications. They are very efficient at nickel and diming you with fees for everything, from taking money out of an ATM machine to walking into the bank and talking to a teller. Loan modifiications are at the bottom of their list of things to do.

A great story appeared recently in the New York times that illustrates just how bad, one bank, Wells Fargo has been handling loan modifications.

Here’s a small portion of the article:

“PHOENIX — Bobbi Giguere had no luck in securing a loan modification from her mortgage servicer. For months, she had sent the bank the financial documents it requested to process her modification. But each time she called to check on the request, she was told to send her paperwork again.

In court, Mrs. Giguere questioned Joe Ohayon, right foreground, of Wells Fargo. He confirmed she had not been asked for a crucial worksheet.

“I submitted the paperwork three times, and nothing happened,” said Mrs. Giguere, 41, who has a high school education and worked as restaurant manager before losing her job.

On Thursday, something happened. She questioned a Wells Fargo official about the bank’s lack of response — under oath.

The spectacle of a high-ranking banking executive being grilled by an ordinary homeowner was the result of an unusual decision by Judge Randolph J. Haines of the United States Bankruptcy Court to summon a senior executive from Wells Fargo to appear in Mrs. Giguere’s bankruptcy case.

At the hearing, Judge Haines made it clear that he was acting out of concerns about Wells Fargo’s mortgage modification practices generally.

“This is certainly not an isolated case,” he said. “The kind of story I hear from this debtor is one that I and other bankruptcy judges around the country are hearing over and over and over again.”

Under preliminary questioning by one of the bank’s lawyers, Mr. Ohayon stated that Mrs. Giguere had repeatedly failed to provide a financial worksheet, a critical document in processing a loan modification.

Under cross-examination by Mrs. Giguere (who had a little assistance from Judge Haines), the bank’s defense withered. From her files, Mrs. Giguere produced a letter from Wells Fargo describing the paperwork that she needed to file for a loan modification. In the witness chair, Mr. Ohayon read the letter.

“Mrs. Giguere is right,” Mr. Ohayon concluded. “The letter did not ask for a financial worksheet.”

Wells Fargo has been criticized for its slow pace in modifying mortgages the U.S. Treasury Department’s foreclosure prevention initiative, which was begun in April. The bank has started trial modifications on about 20,000 home loans under the program, or 6 percent of those who meet the program’s guidelines. JPMorgan Chase, by comparison, has begun modifications on nearly 20 percent of such loans. The banks’ information was issued in a recent report from the Treasury on the progress of the program.”

Read the entire article at New York Times

By the way, I’m still keeping track of one of Wells Fargo’s loan modifications for a client of mine. It’s been going on since June of this year. It’s the same old thing, no one in Wells Fargo talks to each other in doing the loan modification. I’ll let you know if they make the modification.

John O’Dell
Real Estate Broker

Residential Sales in Nevada County November 2009 Compared to November 2008

 map-of-nevada-county

The good news is that sales volume picked up 7 percent.   In November of 2007 to November of 2008, 839 homes had been sold.  From November 2008 to November 2009 897 homes were sold, an increase of 7 percent.

The average sales price in November 2008 was $395,609. In November 2009 the average sales price was $316,859.  This is a decrease of $78,650 or a 20 percent drop in average sales price.  The amount of active listings also dropped 7 percent.

Sales bya few key areas:

 Nevada City area sales increased 17 percent and average sales price dropped 22 percent. The average sales price in November 2009 was $364,800 compared to a year ago of $468,895.

Lake Wildwood sales increased 11 percent and the average sales price dropped 14 percent to an average sales price of $316,216 compared to last year’s average sales price of $368,366.

Lake of the Pines sales decreased 3 percent and the average sales price dropped 20 percent to an average sales price of $313,188 compared to $368,366 last year.

Alta Sierra sales increased 20 percent and the average sales price dropped 26 percent to an average sales price of $305,537 compared to last year’s average sales price of $410,415.

Grass Valley’s sales decreased 3 percent and the average sales price dropped 16 percent to an average sales price of $267,024 compared to last year’s average sales price of $318,072.

Penn Valley sales decreased 10 percent and the average sales price dropped 12 percent to an average sales price of $319,370 compared to last year’s average sales price of $361,450.

Peardale/Chicago Park sales decreased 2 percent and the average sales price decreased 20 percent with an average sales price of $382,940 compared to last year’s average sales price of $476,855.

There are other areas of the county which I have not mentioned. If you are interested in any particular area that is not in the list above, write or call me and I will give you the stats.

John O’Dell
Broker

Property Tax Scam Alive, But Not for Long

This is the letter these scammers use. Looks official, but it's just a scam.
This is the letter these scammers use. Looks official, but it's just a scam.

You may remember earlier this year when you might have received an official looking letter regarding lowering your property taxes.  They had an assessed value of your property, with another value much lower stating this is what your house should be assessed. By sending them money, they promised they could lower your taxes by several hundred dollars or more.  

Now a new law that takes effect January first will ban this popular property tax scam. But one lawmaker is warning Californians to be vigilant now.

Again, you’re probably familiar with the scam. You get a letter in the mail from a company that offers to help reduce your property taxes for a fee. But that’s something counties automatically do for free when the market drops. Democratic Assemblyman Ted Lieu wrote legislation that bans the scam. He said he got one of the notices just last week.

“These third companies and these parties are quite smart,” said Lieu. “They’re sending out a lot of letters right now to try to get as much scam money as they can before the bill takes effect.”

The letters look official and counties say they’ve had hundreds of calls from homeowners who’ve been confused by them.

“Rather than us spending our time notifying people not to get scammed, we’d rather be doing our work for the people,” said Amador County Assessor Jim Rooney, said

Under the new law, scammers will be fined up to $25,000 dollars per letter, and could face six months in jail 

Leave a comment if you have received one of these letters recently.

Attorney Scott Rothstein Arrested in $1.2 Billion Ponzi Scheme

Scott Rothstein in his office
Scott Rothstein in his office

How many Ponzi schemes can there be? I don’t know, but it seems like every day another one is discovered.  Here’s one in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where attorney Scott Rothstein’s suspected  Ponzi scheme  may have taken  $1.2 billion from investors. One investor  calls it a “tragedy” who says he is at risk for tens of millions of dollars. The scandal has sent lawyers, investors, and politicians alike in a tizzy while investigators are scrambling to learn exactly how much money has been lost.

Rothstein, a partner of the law firm Rothstein Rosefeldt and Adler, is suspected of running a covert investment scheme on the side and may have walked away with “substantial sums” put up by investors, according to a lawsuit brought by his partner, Stuart Rosenfeldt.

In what federal authorities say is the biggest fraud case in South Florida history, the 47-year-old faces five counts of racketeering and fraud related to his alleged scheme. Prosecutors say Rothstein ran the scheme out of the 70-lawyer Fort Lauderdale law firm where he was CEO, swindling his own friends and clients. He allegedly forged federal court documents, including judges’ signatures to make his investors believe the settlements they were buying into were legitimate

He once graced the society pages of local newspapers and gave big to Florida politicians, but on Tuesday, Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Rothstein was arrested on federal fraud charges, accused of running a $1.2 billion mini-Madoff Ponzi scheme. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 100 years in prison. How did he spend all that money? Well, the fed’s grabbed $60 million of his toys, including  20 luxury cars, 15 real-estate properties, an 87-foot yacht, 304 pieces of jewelry and $12 million stashed in Moroccan banks

Click HERE to read the federal charges against Rothstein.

Source: ABC News

Why Not Walk Away From My House?

Untitled-1

I wrote earlier that we should not walk away from your house if you are upside down on your mortgage. I’ve changed my mind. If you lost your job or had a great reduction in income for whatever reason, the banks don’t seem to care. I’ve read and seen were they’ll stall until you have used up your savings, made the very last payment you can and than foreclose on your home. 

 Here’s a portion of a great article on the subject of walking away from your home that appeared in the SF Chronicle:

“Go ahead. Break the chains. Stop paying on your mortgage if you owe more than the house is worth. And most important: Don’t feel guilty about it. Don’t think you’re doing something morally wrong.

That’s the incendiary core message of a new academic paper by Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law school professor, titled “Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis.”

White argues that far more of the estimated 15 million American homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages should stiff their lenders and take a hike.

Doing so, he suggests, could save some of them hundreds of thousands of dollars that they “have no reasonable prospect of recouping” in the years ahead. Plus the penalties are nowhere near as painful or long-lasting as they might assume.

“Homeowners should be walking away in droves,” according to White. “But they aren’t. And it’s not because the financial costs of foreclosure outweigh the benefits.” Sure, credit scores get whacked when you walk away, he acknowledges. But as long as you stay current with other creditors, “one can have a good credit rating again – meaning above 660 – within two years after a foreclosure.” 

*************************

“How does White’s 52-page manifesto go over with mortgage lenders? Predictably, not well. Officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – investors who fund the bulk of all new mortgages in the country – disputed White’s characterization of how quickly after foreclosure a walkaway borrower can obtain a new loan. It’s not three years, they said, it’s a minimum of five years, absent extenuating circumstances such as medical or employment problems that caused the foreclosure.”

Remember, before you walk away from your home, check with your accountant and or a tax attorney.

This is a great article, read the rest at San Francisco Gate

So what do you think readers?

It Pays to Build Green

green building

By Tina Perinotto

Here comes more proof that green buildings make sense – dollars and sense in fact. This time a study by the University of San Diego and CB Richard Ellis Group, found that tenants in green buildings experience increased productivity and fewer sick days, and that green buildings have lower vacancy and higher rental rates.

On the financial front in terms of rents and sales values, that’s exactly what Nils Kok, a professor at the University of Berkley, California and at Maastricht University in The Netherlands, found and presented to the Australian Property Institute and Australian Direct Property Investment Association, with his study, Doing Well By Doing Good. Energy efficient buildings were worth 17 to 18 per cent more than inefficient building and they earned 6 per cent more in effective rents, he said. [See our report http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/7633]

Now preliminary findings from the latest report, Do Green Buildings Make Dollars and Sense? overseen by Dr Norm Miller, academic director and professor at the University of San Diego’s Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate, in collaboration with CBRE’s national director of sustainability, Dave Pogue, and Ray Wong, CBRE’s director of Americas research, has found that green buildings are more productive.

According to the research, which will be published later this year, green buildings are more productive on two measures:

The average number of tenant sick days and the self-reported productivity change. “Respondents reported an average of 2.88 fewer sick days in their current green office versus their previous non-green office, and about 55 per cent of respondents indicated that employee productivity had improved,” the report said.

This equated to a net impact of nearly $53.82 a sq m [$5.00 a sq ft] occupied, and the increase in productivity translated into a net impact of about $215.28 a sq m [$20 a sq ft] occupied, based on the average tenant salary, an office space of 23.23 square metres [250 square feet] per worker and 250 workdays a year.

“The study additionally showed that green buildings have 3.5 per cent lower vacancy rates and 13 per cent higher rental rates than the market,” CBRE’s Dave Pogue said.

“The results of this project are beginning to demonstrate the very real and positive impact of sustainable buildings for both our owners and tenant occupants. We have been seeking ways to make an empirical case for the economic benefits of sustainable practices and the results of this study exceeded our expectations,” he continued.

Mr Pogue said the research involved a survey of 154 buildings under CBRE’s management, totalling more than 5.35 million sq m of (51.6 million sq ft) and housing 3000 tenants in 10 markets across the US.

“The study defined a green building as those with LEED certification at any level or those that bear the EPA ENERGY STAR ® label. All of the ENERGY STAR ® buildings in the survey group had been awarded that label since 2008. Most of the buildings included in the research had also adopted other sustainable practices like recycling, green cleaning and water conservation.”

Dr Miller said: “This is an exciting time for the commercial real estate industry where great values and great investment upgrade opportunities coexist.  This window won’t last forever.

“We have now confirmed in this and other studies that green features and energy savings pays off.  Tenants care about healthy energy efficient buildings. We also know that green leases and managing to a new and higher standard will soon become the norm. Commercial real estate players have no choice but to learn how to be better in a sustainable way. We know the economics of green will drive the market, not altruism or concern about global warming,”

The  report also said:

  • 18 per of tenants are willing to pay more for green space
  • 61 per cent of tenants believe healthy indoor environments positively impact staff retention
  • 70 per cent believe it impacts positively on client image
  • 71 per cent felt that green lease provisions are increasingly important
  • Each additional point of ENERGY STAR ® rating saved 0.8-1.0 per cent in electricity
  • Separate metering yielded a 21 per cent energy savings, more than any other factor.

These findings are generally consistent with other research on this topic, which has determined buildings with the ENERGY STAR ® label, LEED certification or other identified sustainable programs generally perform better.

The Fifth Estate – sustainable property news

Home Buyers Tax Credits Explained

federal-tax-credits

As you have probably heard, Congress passed a new act that extends emergency unemployment compensation during these difficult economic times. Included in that bill was the extension of the First Time Homebuyer Credit which was scheduled to end December 1st of   2009.  Not only has the credit has been extended but it has also been expanded to include a whole new group of potential homebuyers.

 First Time Home Buyers – This credit of 10% of the purchase price of the home or a maximum of $8,000 will remain available on purchases contracted by April 30, 2010 and closed no later than June 30, 2010.  A first time home buyer is defined as someone who has not had ownership in a personal residence during the 3-year period prior to the purchase of the home. 

A new provision has been added to include individuals considered Long-time Residents of the Same Personal Residence.  This provision includes homeowners who have used and owned the same home as principal residence for 5 consecutive years of an 8-year period.  When these individuals purchase a new home after November 6, 2009, they may be eligible for a 10% tax credit not to exceed $6,500.  

The following restrictions apply to both types of credits: 

  • A phase out for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $125,000 to $145,000 for single filers and $225,000 to $245,000 for married couples filing a joint return.  

·        The purchase price of the home cannot exceed $800,000 or there is no credit of any amount. 

·        The credit is not available for buyers under age 18 or buyers who can be claimed as a dependent of another.  There are also additional restrictions on purchases of homes from family members. 

For extended duty military, Foreign Service workers and intelligence community workers who are serving outside the United States for at least 90 days, the credits have been extended by one year to April 30, 2011. 

To claim either of these credits, the taxpayer must include a copy of the settlement statement when filing their return.  

For tax planning purposes, keep in mind that the price of the home must not exceed $800,000 or the credit is lost completely.  Even a purchase price of $800,500 will eliminate the credit while a purchase price of $799,500 will qualify. 

The phase out amounts have been increased for this new time period which covers purchases between November 7, 2009 and April 30, 2010.  If you fall within the phase out ranges listed above, you can still receive a partial credit.  If your income exceeds those limits, no credit is available. 

No payback is required for credits unless the house ceases to be a personal residence within 36 months.  In other words, if you don’t intend to use the home for at least three years, be prepared to repay the full amount. 

If you have any additional questions regarding additional specifics of the Home Buyer Credits, please do not hesitate to call or email our office.

 Source: Courtsey of  Robertson, Woodford & Summers, LLP
Abacus7.com

FIG Claims Scammed $94.6 Million by Member of Saudi Royal Family

Saudi Flag
Saudi Flag

PHOENIX (CN) – A real estate company claims that an alleged member of the Saudi royal family failed to honor a $94.9 million property purchase agreement and defrauded investors in a check-kiting scheme – and that some of the money may have been used “for activities hostile to the United States”. Foundations Investment Group claims that Sultan Alshaie and Royal Holdings produced false government documents to promote themselves as “international business investors” who operated in prominent business circles.

Foundations aka FIG Global claims in Maricopa County Court that one of the Alshaies’ false documents was a bank statement showing nearly $220 million in the account.

FIG says it entered “a venture of international investing into prestigious properties around the world” with Alshaie, who claimed he was interested in a resort property in Madeira, Portugal.
Alshaie and Royal Holdings allegedly transferred $80 million to a Swiss banking institution for the joint venture, prompting FIG to complete a final investment agreement, only to find that the transfer was “a decoy which allowed for multiple ghost transfers of exactly the same amount to be wired to other recipients in other parts of the world.”

The complaint states: “(A)uthorities from the United States government familiar with this transaction and others like it, including the parties involved, suspected that these funds were used for activities hostile to the United States”.

When the defendants transferred the money into the United States, Alshaie claimed that the accounts were frozen under the Patriot Act, and he continued to claim they were frozen though he actually had access to them, according to the complaint.

FIG says Alshaie then blew off its written demand for performance.

FIG Global seeks rescission, refunds and $94.6 million in damages. Also named as defendants are Nassir Alshaie, Ahmed Alshaie, the Alshaie Family Trust, Bernard Otremba-Blanc, Royal Holdings LLC and Royal Energy LLC.

Source Courthouse News     .