Posts

“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….