“Simon Rule” Gutted by New Court Decision

in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The so-called “Simon Rule”, among the most potent weapons available to distressed homeowners in negotiating short sales, and protecting themselves from financial liability following foreclosure, has been significantly weakened as a result of a new California court of appeals decision.  That decision, Cadlerock Joint Venture, LP v. Lobel (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1531, will change the landscape to the detriment of many struggling California mortgage holders.

How Does This Impact Homeowners Considering a Short-Sale?

Cadlerock now requires a court to look at who owns the loans at the time of the foreclosure by the senior lienor.  If the senior lienor has assigned/sold its junior lien to a third party prior to the foreclosure, that third party will now be able to sue the homeowner for the full amount of the junior loan after the foreclosure.  To summarize, following Cadlerock, in most situations the homeowner will lose the home and also have to repay the balance of the non-purchase money second loan.  (The court left a small amount of “wiggle room” for cases where the senior lienor assigns/sells its junior lien after the foreclosure.  There, Simon will still apply.)

Simon Rule Background

As discussed in previous articles, for the last twenty years many Californians with non-purchase money second loans have been able to protect themselves from claims brought by certain “junior” lenders after a foreclosure by the “senior” lender.  This protection originated in a landmark case called Simon v. Bank of America (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1537.

The Simon decision created an exception to the old rule that applies where a homeowner has two separate loans on a single property, and where the first mortgage holder (aka the “senior lienor”) forecloses on the property.  Before Simon, the second loan (aka the “junior lienor”) could collect the balance still owing on that loan after the senior foreclosed (and so long as the second loan was not a “purchase money” loan; i.e., part of the loan “package” used to buy the house).  (“Purchase money” second loans were, and still are, barred from collection under a separate rule not discussed here.)

What Simon said was that where the first and second loans were issued by the same bank (in that case, Bank of America), the bank could not collect on its second loan after foreclosing on its first loan; thus, the “Simon Rule”.  An equally important part of the rule was that a bank could not avoid this restriction by “assigning”, or selling, its second loan to another bank or investor.  In other words, courts would look to who owned the loans when they were issued.  If the same bank issued the two loans, the “Simon Rule” would apply.

In recent years, Simon became an invaluable tool in negotiating short sales involving non-purchase money second loans.  (See my January 2012 blog post, Playing the Simon Card in Short Sale Negotiations.)  Cadlerock now renders that tool virtually useless.

All homeowners considering short sales should consult with competent legal counsel to determine the impact of Cadlerock on their situation.  Failure to do so may result in enormous financial consequences and long-term hardship.

Important HAFA Program Changes Announced

in , , , , , , , /by

The federal government’s flagship HAFA short sale program continues to evolve in hopes of more effectively addressing the needs of distressed homeowners for whom continued ownership is not longer a realistic option.  The most recent Supplemental Directive 12-02 was released on March 9, 2012; loan servicers are instructed to implement program changes effective immediately.  They include:

  • There are no longer any occupancy requirements for HAFA eligibility.
    Previously, HAFA required that the property be occupied as the borrower’s primary residence at some point within the prior 12 months.
  • The amount a servicer may authorize the settlement agent to pay from gross proceeds to subordinate mortgage holder(s) in exchange for a lien release and full release of borrower liability is increased from $6,000 to $8,500.
  • Borrower relocation incentives will be limited to HAFA short sales or Deed-in-Lieu transactions where the property is occupied by a borrower or a tenant at the time of the Short Sale Agreement or DIL Agreement and who will be required to vacate the property as a condition of the sale or DIL.
  • Borrowers may now elect to remain current on the loan during the term of the Short Sale Agreement or DIL Agreement.
  • Credit bureau reporting of HAFA transactions are amended as follows:
    • If the real estate is sold for less than the full balance owed and the deficiency balance is forgiven, report the following Base Segment fields as specified:  Account Status Code = 13 (Paid or closed account/zero balance) or 65 (Account paid in full/a foreclosure was started), as applicable.
  • The deadline for HAFA has been extended. A borrower now has until December 31, 2013 to submit a Short Sale Agreement or a written request for a consideration for a Short Sale Agreement to be eligible for HAFA.

The stated intention of the program updates is to expand the availability of HAFA’s benefits to more struggling homeowners.  Certainly, the increase in the amount of gross proceeds available to settle junior liens should help.  This has been an area of particular concern, most especially in California where the implementation in 2011 of SB 457 barred
lien holders from reserving collection rights following short sales or, alternatively, from conditioning short sale approval from additional seller contributions.  Of course, as with all previous program changes, the proof will be in the pudding.  Stay tuned….

Playing the Simon card in short sale negotiations

in , , , , , , , , , /by

As a real estate professional negotiating short sales on behalf of underwater property owners, your chances of success are directly tied to the laws that apply to your client’s situation.  In other words, if a lender won’t approve your client’s short sale, what leverage do you have to “push back” and change that decision?

We start by analyzing the client’s foreclosure rights.  That is, what will happen if the short sale doesn’t get approved and the client instead lets the lender foreclose? California has “anti-deficiency” laws that lay out exactly what happens when a lender forecloses.  In most cases, the answer depends on the type of loan (or loans) involved.

A loan that is used to buy a borrower’s primary residence is considered a “non-recourse” loan.  If a lender forecloses on such a non-recourse loan, all it gets is the property.  The law bars the lender from collecting the balance still owing, commonly called the “deficiency.”  (There are some rare exceptions to this rule, typically involving income or commercial properties; those are not addressed here.)

If the borrower took out a second loan as part of the original purchase money financing, that loan is also considered “non-recourse.”  If the first mortgage (known as the “senior lien holder”) forecloses its loan, the second lender (the “junior”) is barred from collecting its deficiency.

In contrast, if the second mortgage was not purchase money but instead was added later (often as a home equity loan or “HELOC”), the loan is considered a “recourse” loan.  In that situation a foreclosure by the senior lien holder usually does not bar the junior lender from collecting its deficiency.  However, there is a very important exception to this law.   That exception is known as the Simon rule (named for a 1992 case called Simon vs. Bank of America).

The Simon rule comes into play where senior and junior liens were issued by the same lender; e.g., Bank of America first and Bank of America second.  In that case, the law bars the junior from collecting its deficiency if the senior forecloses.  The rationale is that the senior has the ability to protect its own junior loan; and where the senior decides not to do so, Simon says that it gives up its right to collect the deficiency on the junior.

If your client has a Simon loan situation, you now have much stronger leverage in negotiating a short sale.  If the lender denies the short sale, you simply advise that your client will let the property go to foreclosure.  In that case, the lender will get zero on its second loan.  And in most situations, lenders would rather get something for their junior lien than nothing.

With the recent changes in California short sale laws – in particular the new SB 458 – many realtors I’ve talked to are afraid that second loans won’t approve short sales.  For that reason, it’s more important than ever to know what exactly cards you can play on your client’s behalf when seeking that approval.  In some cases, the Simon card may just be your “ace in the hole.”

If you suspect you may have a potential Simon situation, first locate copies of the deeds of trust for both the senior and junior liens.  Then give me a call and I’ll help your clients and you analyze those documents to determine if in fact Simon applies.

Finally, I’d like to thank Kim McAtee of Coldwell Banker’s Orinda, California office for suggesting the blog topic.  I always welcome readers’ suggestions on topics they’d like to see.  Thanks, Kim!