All posts in Foreclosure Corner

Attorney Convicted of Felony for Short Sale Antics

This is a former student of mine so I have taken his name out of the article.  But I suspect this is a common occurrence so watch out.  The attorney has been suspended by the bar and may be disbarred.  The article is from the US Attorneys Office.

Modesto Real Estate Attorney Convicted of Fraud in a Short Sale Scheme

FRESNO, Calif. — Mr. ———, 53, of Modesto, was convicted today of three counts of wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent short-sale scheme, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced. Read more…

In re Sundquist, Last Add?

This is an article today in the ABI blog today.

BofA Judge Doesn’t Want to Rip Up Scathing Ruling Against Bank

A bankruptcy judge who rebuked Bank of America Corp. over its “heartless” foreclosure on a California couple is not happy that the homeowners want him to erase his ruling, Bloomberg News reported yesterday. The couple reached a private settlement with the bank that calls for rescinding both the $45 million penalty that Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein imposed on the lender and the scathing ruling he issued in March. “So you want me to take the injunction and tear it up and throw it out,” Judge Klein asked during a hearing yesterday in Sacramento. He then explained that if the opinion is vacated, it will be expunged from the annals of law and can’t be cited as a precedent in other foreclosure abuse cases. As one of the couple’s lawyers explained to the judge that they were very grateful for what he’d done in the case and said that approving the settlement wouldn’t take away from the message in his ruling, the wife sat in the courtroom next to her husband and cried silently. Judge Klein sent attorneys for the couple and the bank to meet privately with another judge to discuss further revising the settlement. After they spent four hours behind closed doors, the judge announced there were some unresolved issues and that they’d try to wrap it up on Oct. 18.

Prof. Dan Schechter’s Comments on Sundquist

My post on In re Sundquist is here.  As part of his summary of cases distributed by the California Insolvency Law Committee, Prof. Dan Schechter had the following observations on In re Sundquist:

AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Given the court’s careful discussion of the evidence, I predict that the liability phase of this decision will withstand review. I also predict affirmance of the award of compensatory damages. I am not so sure, however, about the award of punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court has sharply curtailed the allowable ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003): “The wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award.” Read more…

Move Over Sundquist – 9th Circuit Says Enticing a Borrower to Apply for a Loan Mod It Knows Will be Rejected is a Violation of California B & P 17200

Oskoui v. JP Morgan Chase, 851 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. March, 2017)

Issue:   Did the bank’s offer to the borrower that she apply for a loan modification which it knew would be rejected because the borrower did not qualify constitute unfair competition under California B & P Section 17200?

Holding:   Yes, at least enough to overcome summary judgment.  The borrower “was the victim of an unconscionable process.”

Appeal from district court, Judge Fernando Olguin

Judge Stephen Trott

“Mahin Oskoui sued defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) for damages allegedly suffered when she unsuccessfully attempted over a two-year period to modify the loan on her home.”  When she became delinquent on her house payments, she began responding to Chase letters offering her loan modifications which she found out later she did not qualify for under any circumstances.  With each application, she made certain required payments to Chase, she should have learnt about payday loans no credit check

 

Read more…

Mortgage Refinance Calculator

This “tool” is really nice.  If you want to refi your mortgage and get a lower interest rate, you have to pay points, appraisal, other costs etc.  You’re actually in the hole for a while.  Is it worth it?  This calculator is just my style – SIMPLE and gives you a straight answer.  You can get it here.

Consumer Financial Protection Board Slaps Around Fay Servicing

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today took action against mortgage servicer Fay Servicing for failing to provide mortgage borrowers with the protections against foreclosure that are required by law.”  The article on the CFPB website can be accessed here.

Nice Explanation from the BAP of the Mechanics of Property Tax Sales in California

Judge Jury lays out the process very nicely in County of Imperial Treasurer Tax Collector v. Stadtmueller (In re RW Meridian LLC), — B.R. — (9th Cir. BAP February 2017)

California’s statutory scheme for tax sales Taxes on real property are secured by and serve as a lien on the real property for which they are assessed. Secured property taxes that remain unpaid at the close of the fiscal year (June 30) are deemed to be in default. Tax Code § 3436.  Properties which have been tax defaulted for a minimum of five years are subject to the county tax collector’s power to sell them to satisfy the outstanding defaulted taxes. Tax Code § 3691. [per FN 5, For nonresidential commercial property, the period is three years. Tax Code § 3691]  Sale is to the highest bidder at a public auction.  Public auction includes the internet. Tax Code § 3693.  Various notices and publication are required prior to the tax sale. Tax Code §§ 3351, 3361, 3371, 3701, 3704.7. Read more…

In re Sundquist – $45 million in Punis Sounds About Right to Me

I hereby nominate Judge Christopher Klein for Super Judge.  This is my brief of the 109 page Memorandum.

Sundquist v. Bank of America (In re Sundquist) 566 B.R. 563, 14-02278 CN (Bkrtcy, E. D. Cal. May, 2017) Klein, J.

Issue:   Given that Bank of America violated the automatic stay, what is the proper amount of damages under section 362(k)?

Holding:   Actual damages of $1,074,000 plus $5 million of punitive damages, further punitive damages awarded of $40 million payable to two consumer organizations and five law schools.

Judge Christopher Klein

The debtors here had attempted unsuccessfully prepetition to do loan mods with Bank of America.  They finally filed chapter 13 to stop the foreclosure sale.  Notwithstanding that it had notice, the bank conducted the foreclosure sale the next day anyway.  “Bank of America committed at least six further automatic stay violations by the end of August 2010 as it bulled forward.”  This included bringing an unlawful detainer.  About the same time, a different department of the bank recognized the error and notified the foreclosure company.  But upon receiving the three day notice, the debtors panicked and immediately moved.  “Although Bank of America knew on August 20, 2010, and beyond cavil by September 7, 2010, that the foreclosure would be rescinded, it did not withdraw the unlawful detainer action or tell the Sundquists the action would be dismissed.”  Six months later, the bank finally rescinded the foreclosure sale but did not tell the debtors nor their counsel.  The debtors learned about the rescission a month or two later and asked for the keys back.  The bank gave them the keys.  When they moved back into the property, the tress were dead, appliances gone, the place was ransacked, and the HOA had assessed a $20,000 penalty for not taking care of the place.  The bank not only refused to pay for the damages but demanded that the debtors pay the mortgage for the time when it owned the property. That’s why people wanting to buy a home, should consider take the precautions so this don’t happen to them as well.

The debtors finally sued the bank in state court.  The state court eventually said that the violation of the stay claims had to be litigated in federal court.  So the debtors filed an action in federal court which was then referred to the bankruptcy court.   During the litigation, the debtors complained to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  “The Bank of America response to CFPB is noteworthy for two false statements made by the Office of the Bank of America CEO and President.  It falsely asserts that there was no foreclosure of the Sundquist residence.  And, it falsely asserts that the Sundquists are not in active litigation with Bank of America.  Both statements were materially false.”

Judge Klein then walked through the types of damages available for violation of the automatic stay.  “Actual damages under § 362(k)(1) include both physical damages and economic damages.”  “Emotional distress damages are also commonly the subject of awards of actual damages.”  “Attorneys’ fees and costs are a mandatory component of the § 362(k)(1) remedy.”  Punitive damages are awarded in “appropriate circumstances.”  He writes that the “thin-skull” doctrine works.

Judge Klein then walked through the evidence he received.  He found “Renée Sundquist to be an exceptionally credible witness.  She displayed considerable courage in revealing her very private journal and exposing herself to cross-examination and public exposure of her all-too-human traits.”  Note: there are many references in the footnotes to her diary.  He also commented that the debtor’s attorney could have done a better job establishing the specifics of the damages.

Finally, he made very painstaking efforts to compute the damages for each of many different aspects of the actual damages.  For example, he awarded $401,511 for lost income of wife, $91,351 for lost income of husband, $24,000 for lost property, $83,200 for alternate housing, $24,000 for the HOA damages, and $62,268 for attorneys fees.  He awarded $300,000 of emotional distress damages.  Total actual damages were $1,074,000.

For punitive damages Judge Klein said, “To award punitive damages measured by a conventional multiplier of three to six times of the Sundquist compensatory damages would be laughed off in Bank of America’s boardroom as a mere ‘cost of doing business’ payable out of the petty cash account.”

He noted however that punitive damages should not result generally in a huge windfall to the plaintiffs.  “To let a defendant escape well-deserved punitive damages that are needed to vindicate the societal interests served by the law authorizing the award merely because a plaintiff would be receiving too much money is not a satisfactory answer.”  “A solution based on common sense is to direct to a public purpose the portion of legitimate punitive damages that exceed what private victims ought to be allowed to retain — the societal interest component of punitive damages.”  “It is noteworthy that the language of the statute does not prohibit a court from putting strings on what may be done with a portion of the amount awarded.”

So Judge Klein awarded $45 million in punitive damages.  He permitted the debtors to keep $5 million but ordered them to give the rest (after taxes) to seven different entities including five local California law schools.  He dictated that if Bank of America were to donate $30 million to the same organizations, he would limit the punitive damages to $5 million paid to the debtors.  Two additional comments re punitive damages are worth note.  He ordered the funds to “be used [by the corporate recipients] only for education in consumer law and delivery of legal services in matters of consumer law.”  He also commented, “It is the intention of this court that the six designated entities shall have standing to participate in requests for post-trial relief in this court and to participate in any appeal from the judgment in this adversary proceeding.”
Finally, Judge Klein declared the debtors’ mortgage “reinstated” and fixed the amount owing.  He then said

“Bank of America will be enjoined from requiring payments from the Sundquists (who may make voluntary payments), and enjoined from declaring a default, until 60 days after Bank of America pays the Sundquists the full amount of the actual and punitive damages here awarded.”

Note:  Bank of America of course immediately appealed to the BAP, docket number  17-1103.  On April 27, 2017, it gave notice that it had posted a $57 million appeal bond.   The two bankruptcy organizations and the law schools have each filed a “Notice of Appearance”  On May 9, 2017, each of the school and organizations filed a Motion to Intervene which is set for hearing on June 6, 2017.  The bank’s opening brief is due on June 2, 2017.  As of May 29, 2017, there is no extension of that due date.

Sciarratta – State of Void Sales post Yvanovva

Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Assn, 2016 WL 2941194 (California Court of Appeal, Nares, J., May 18, 2016)

Issue: Must a foreclosure sale be set aside where the foreclosing lender is not the actual owner of the loan at the time of the sale, or must the borrower show prejudice first?

Holding: Yes, “a homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so—by those facts alone—sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.”

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John Vineyard, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Nares Huffman O’Rourke

The lender here filed a Notice of Default. Subsequently it assigned the loan to a different bank. Shortly after the foreclosure sale, the original lender assigned the loan to yet a second different bank who purportedly “purchased” the property at the sale. The court agreed that the lender that foreclosed was not the owner of the note at the time of the foreclosure. The borrower brought an action for wrongful foreclosure and the lender argued that there was no prejudice to the borrower since the conflicting transfers were paperwork mistakes and either way, the borrower was in default and had not cured. The trial court agreed with the lender and dismissed the case. Read more…

Reviewing the Anti-Deficiency Rules

I was reading an article today about the Heritage Financial litigation that has been going on the past few years – until Heritage filed chapter 7 in Texas.  I want to remind myself of the existing anti-deficiency rules in California and the anti-fraud rules.

C.C.P. § 726(g)

(g) [the right of a lender to sue for fraud] does not apply to loans secured by single-family, owner-occupied residential real property, when the property is actually occupied by the borrower as represented to the lender in order to obtain the loan and the loan is for an amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) or less, as adjusted annually, commencing on January 1, 1987, to the Consumer Price Index as published by the United States Department of Labor.

The anti-deficiency rules apply to 1) land-sale contracts, 2) purchase money loans from the seller of the property, 3) purchase money loans from lenders on SFR or less than 4 units including refis of those loans. Read more…