DSNews delivers stories, ideas, links, companies, people, events, and videos impacting the mortgage default servicing industry.
Issue link: http://digital.dsnews.com/i/143997
» California Arkansas rank: 21 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Foreclosure Rate April 2013 3.4% Unemployment Rate 2.6% 7.1% year ago 4.3% 2.1% Joyce Essex 7.3% joyce@essexharvey.com www.EssexHarvey.com 310-777-6375 phone 310-922-7476 cell year-over-year change -22.2% 24.4% -2.7% Top County FrAnklin CounTy 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Foreclosure Rate April 2013 3.7% 6.3% year ago 6.5% REO AND 3.9% year-over-year change -42.4% 63.6% Top Core-Based Statistical Area BlyTheville, Ar 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Foreclosure Rate April 2013 4.3% SHORT SALES SPECIALIST 4.9% year ago 5.4% 4.5% year-over-year change -21.0% 10.3% note: The 90+ day delinquecy rate is the percentage of outstanding mortgage loans that are seriously delinquent. The foreclosure rate is the percentage of outstanding mortgage loans currently in foreclosure. State rank is based on the April 2013 foreclosure rate. All figures are rounded to the nearest decimal. The unemployment rate reflects preliminary April 2013 figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All other data courtesy of LPS Applied Analytics. California rank: 37 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Foreclosure Rate April 2013 2.6% Unemployment Rate 1.4% 9.0% year ago 3.5% 2.9% 10.7% SOLD GARY CARTER 20955 Pathfinder Road, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 d: 909-860-5540, c: 951-315-7327 f: 909-860-8470 mr.sold007@yahoo.com www.garycarterrealtor.com year-over-year change -26.6% -51.9% -15.9% Top County Lake CounTy 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Foreclosure Rate April 2013 3.4% 2.3% year ago 4.1% FROM THE BENCH 5.1% year-over-year change -16.8% -55.3% Top Core-Based Statistical area CLearLake, Ca 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Foreclosure Rate April 2013 3.4% 2.3% year ago 4.1% 5.1% year-over-year change -16.8% -55.3% note: The 90+ day delinquecy rate is the percentage of outstanding mortgage loans that are seriously delinquent. The foreclosure rate is the percentage of outstanding mortgage loans currently in foreclosure. State rank is based on the April 2013 foreclosure rate. All figures are rounded to the nearest decimal. The unemployment rate reflects preliminary April 2013 figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All other data courtesy of LPS Applied Analytics. California Homeowner Bill of Rights: Ambiguity Can Easily Lead to Litigation Signed into law July 2012 and effective January 1, 2013, the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) has made a host of sweeping changes to the non-judicial foreclosure process in California. Unfortunately, many of the provisions in HBOR utilize VISIT US ONLINE @ DSNEWS.COM vague or undefined terms; such terms are a breeding ground for litigation. One of the most important changes in HBOR is the prohibition on dual-tracking foreclosures in California. In a nutshell, this means lenders and servicers can no longer move forward with a non-judicial foreclosure at the same time they are reviewing a borrower for a loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative (FPA). Once a servicer receives a complete application for an available FPA, the servicer must put that foreclosure on hold. In an attempt to prevent abuse of this provision, HBOR limits what applications a servicer must consider. Specifically, servicers are not required to review a first-lien loan modification application if the borrower was evaluated for a first-lien mod prior to January 1, 2013, unless there has been a "material change" to the borrower's financial circumstances. Unfortunately for borrowers and servicers alike, HBOR fails to define what constitutes a "material change." Undoubtedly, this will result in numerous lawsuits filed by borrowers who feel their servicer wrongfully deemed their purported changes immaterial. Not all FPAs are of the first-lien modification variety, however. HBOR also provides protections for those borrowers who are attempting a short sale of their home. In such instances, a servicer must put the foreclosure process on hold once the short sale has been approved in writing by all parties and "proof of funds" has been provided to the servicer. Rather than electing to use a term such as "tender," which has a well-understood and defined legal meaning, the drafters of HBOR elected to use the term "proof of funds," but they failed to provide a definition of this term. This uncertainty will likely result in numerous instances of disagreement and confusion between servicers and borrowers as to whether "proof of funds" was in fact provided and therefore a foreclosure hold was required. Wrongful foreclosure lawsuits based upon a disagreement over what constitutes "proof of funds" are all but inevitable given this ambiguity. Since HBOR provides for a private right of action for borrowers against servicers who have violated the requirements of the legislation, it is imperative that servicers work closely with their foreclosure counsel to create compliance procedures that limit their exposure. This "From the Bench" article was contributed by Nathaniel M. Brodnax, a senior litigation attorney with the Law Offices of Les Zieve, which represents creditors in California as well as Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. 67