Real estate issues related to property located in Arizona.
By Rebecca McKinsey The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Aug 7, 2013 10:18 PM
A California man was sentenced this week to five years in prison for his involvement in a scam in which many Arizona Latinos lost their homes.
Frank Becerra Campos, 66, of San Diego, and two other men ran advance-fee mortgage-rescue companies that collected at least $669,743 in up-front fees from more than 260 homeowners “in exchange for loan modification services they utterly failed to provide,” according to court documents.
More than half of those homeowners were in Arizona, said Cosme Lopez, public-affairs officer with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix.
Campos, who speaks Spanish, and Miguel Carrera and Oswaldo Esqueda, both Mexican citizens who lived in Arizona, targeted mostly “distressed” Latino homeowners, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Active warrants are out for the arrests of Carrera and Esqueda, Lopez said. Both are believed to have fled to Mexico.
“It was an easy scheme for (Campos) to do this, because of the type of people in need,” Lopez said.
Under two business names, the men charged up-front fees ranging from $2,500 to $4,500 and promised homeowners their mortgage principal balance and monthly payments would be reduced by about 25 percent, a news release by federal prosecutors said.
Court documents said, “Not a single homeowner received a reduction in the principal balance on their mortgage loan.”
Rather, foreclosure proceedings “inevitably” began against most of them.
The three men facilitated bankruptcy proceedings for many of the homeowners, telling them it would delay their foreclosures.
Prosecutors also noted that Bankruptcy Courts found that the men committed multiple bankruptcy violations.
Campos started Gold Capital Investment Corp. in California in 1989, and Carrera and Esqueda, who are brothers-in-law, started Foreclosure Home Savers LLC in Arizona in 2009. They joined forces soon after, according to U.S. District Court documents.
In 2010, after a complaint from one of their clients, the FBI began investigating the men.
Campos pleaded guilty to his involvement with the scam after being charged with conspiracy, a felony.
He was sentenced Monday to five years in prison and three years of supervised release.
After being indicted and provided counsel, Carrera and Esqueda fled.
Officials believe that they are in Mexico and that Carrera is working in real estate, using the name Mike Beltran, according to prosecutors.
Campos’ plea agreement stipulates his agreement to pay full restitution to the victims of the scam — $127,253 to those in California.
It says that he, Carrera and Esqueda are all responsible for the $542,490 owed to Arizona victims.
Any service asking for payment to serve as a third-party mediator between homeowners and financial institutions should raise a red flag, said Andres L. Contreras, vice president of commercial property operations and housing counseling for Chicanos Por La Causa.
For more than 40 years, Chicanos Por La Causa has offered educational services and advocacy to people in Phoenix.
Although the organization caters to anyone, it offers services in English and Spanish and often serves Latino residents. Its housing counselors help homeowners who are nearing foreclosure or have encountered services such as those offered by Campos, Carrera and Esqueda.
For Campos’ victims, language was likely a major factor, Contreras said.
“(If you are) uncomfortable talking to the loan provider or the financial institution, and somebody comes to your house, speaking your language … telling you, ‘We can help you with this, we know how to navigate through that’ — a lot of it is the language barrier,” he said.
Chicanos Por La Causa and similar organizations seek to educate homeowners and help those facing language barriers learn to advocate for themselves when it comes to housing.
“Anyone who says, ‘I’ll take care of this for you; I will talk for you,’ you need to be wary of that,” Contreras said.
Article in the Washington Post: Last week, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch announced that five major banks were pleading guilty to criminal charges for what she described as a “brazen display of collusion” to manipulate the currency markets.
Yet another loan workout or modification scam. I am disgusted by the number of calls we receive every week detailing a company or lawyer who takes someone’s hard earned money and fails to deliver on their promise to modify the home mortgage.
Housing counselors can provide advice on buying a home, renting, defaults, foreclosures, and credit issues. Advice from housing counselors can be provided at little or no cost to consumers.
According to Bloomberg News: Fannie Mae will begin bulk auctions of mortgages, including some sales targeted for non-profit groups and small investors, as Fannie Mae moves to reduce the number of non-performing loans “sour mortgages” on its books.
By Benzion J Westreich & Scott C Cutrow, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (This article was first published by the International Law Office.)
Since the California Supreme Court’s 1897 decision in Davis v Randall,(1) the law in California has clearly been that “whether a mortgage lien is merged in the fee … upon both being united in the same person” is a question of the intent of the grantee, with the presumption being that both interests will be treated separately if the grantee is also the holder of the mortgage. Most, if not all practitioners have relied on this decision and have therefore used this two-step process (deed in lieu followed by non-judicial foreclosure) to quickly obtain title to the property and remove any and all intervening liens. The endgame is to clean up the property and position it for resale with a clean title. For decades, this strategy worked, with title companies providing the necessary insurance upon the subsequent sale.Due to the 2008 economic downturn, the ensuing pervasive foreclosure actions and the fact that title companies felt embattled because of the extraordinary number of mechanic’s lien claims that they had to insure as a result of underwriting decisions made for business reasons (the prime factor being the decision to insure the priority of deeds of trust even though they were recorded after the commencement of construction), title insurance companies have refused to insure sales by lenders after their two-step foreclosures, citing the merger doctrine. Title companies were ignoring the nonmerger presumption in the case of mortgagees, as well as the fact that the presumption was invariably bolstered by specific non-merger provisions in the deed in lieu documents.
In Decon Group, Inc v Prudential Mortgage Capital Co, LLC,(2) a California appellate court recently affirmed this tenet of California law. The court found that Davis is alive and well and held that where a senior lienholder receives a grant deed containing an anti-merger clause in lieu of foreclosure on a property that is also subject to a junior lien, the senior deed of trust lien does not merge into title and the senior lienholder retains the right to foreclose on the property and to extinguish the junior lien. Decon should help to dispel the reluctance of title companies to insure title upon a sale after a twostep foreclosure.
A property owned by a borrower was subject to a first deed of trust held by a lender recorded in February 2008. In April 2009 after not being paid for renovations that it had performed for the property owner, Decon recorded a mechanic’s lien against the property.
In July 2009 the mechanic’s lien holder filed suit against the borrower and the lender for breach of contract and quiet title. In September 2009 the lender filed a notice of default and election to sell the property, thus commencing the foreclosure process. In November 2009, in a negotiated transaction, the lender accepted a deed in lieu from the borrower. The grant deed between the borrower and lender expressly provided that the interest of the grantee of the property would not merge with the interest of the lender upon transfer or assignment, but would instead remain separate and distinct.
In December 2009 the lender filed a notice of sale and in January 2010 an affiliate of the lender purchased the property at the foreclosure sale (apparently, as is the practice, to avoid transfer taxes the affiliate was also the holder of the deed of trust). In April 2010 the affiliate sold the property. Following the sale, the holder of the mechanic’s lien brought an action to foreclose its lien, challenging the lender’s foreclosure. The mechanic’s lien holder argued that the merger doctrine applied. They argued that the senior lender’s acceptance of a deed in lieu had extinguished the senior loan and deed of trust, merging them into a single interest. The mechanic’s lien holder further argued that the senior lender was thus unable to initiate foreclosure proceedings.
The trial court agreed with the mechanic’s lien holder and held that under the merger doctrine, the mechanic’s lien was not eliminated by the sale of the property and was first and primary to all other liens on the property.
On appeal, the court held that the senior lienholder’s acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure did not eliminate the senior deed of trust. The court reiterated the longstanding California law that “the senior beneficiary’s lien and title do not merge when a deed in lieu is given if there are any junior lienholders of record”.(3) The court reaffirmed that there is a presumption against merger if the grantee is a senior lienholder, as the senior lienholder’s intent to avoid merger is assumed. Regarding the actual intent of the parties, the court stated that the foregoing presumption was buttressed by the non-merger provision in the deed in lieu, which clearly indicated the specific intent of the parties. Consequently, the merger doctrine did not apply and the mechanic’s lien was eliminated by the lender’s non-judicial foreclosure.
The Decon decision reaffirms the longstanding principle that a senior lienholder’s acceptance of a grant deed in lieu of foreclosure does not merge the lien into title. Further, the case demonstrates the importance of the parties’ intent and establishes that there is no merger where the senior lienholder does not intend that the lien be merged into title. As a practical result of the case, senior lienholders can protect themselves by making their intent to avoid merger clear in the terms of the grant deed, as any such intent expressed will weigh heavily against merger.
Lenders looking for additional protection may seek to defend themselves by ensuring that the grant deed is accepted and held by an entity separate from the lienholder. Because the merger doctrine applies only where a single owner holds a greater and lesser estate in the same parcel, forming two distinct entities to hold the respective interests can serve to defeat merger. For example, a lender’s creation of a separate LLC to receive title by way of the grant deed will sufficiently result in two different and distinct owners, thereby avoiding the consequences of merger. California’s transfer tax laws are somewhat unclear as to whether transfer tax must be paid if the deed of trust is not held by the transferee in the non-judicial foreclosure. California law specifically exempts lenders that hold a deed of trust from transfer tax if they accept a deed in lieu or purchase the property in a foreclosure sale. It is unclear what happens if this is done through a subsidiary. This is why the non-merger doctrine, as applied to foreclosing lenders, is so important.
In light of Decon, title companies have little basis for refusing to insure sales by lenders after a twostep foreclosure, especially where lenders have taken the aforementioned precautionary measures, because Decon reaffirms that a senior lienholder’s interests will be protected under California law. Decon makes one thing abundantly clear: the strong and effective drafting of a grant deed is fundamental to a lender’s ability to avoid the consequences of merger and take advantage of the benefits of accepting a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
What is a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure (Deed in Lieu or DIL)?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: A deed in lieu of foreclosure is a deed instrument in which a mortgagor (i.e. the borrower) conveys all interest in a real property to the mortgagee (i.e. the lender) to satisfy a loan that is in default and avoid foreclosure proceedings.
The deed in lieu of foreclosure offers several advantages to both the borrower and the lender. The principal advantage to the borrower is that it immediately releases him/her from most or all of the personal indebtedness associated with the defaulted loan. The borrower also avoids the public notoriety of a foreclosure proceeding and may receive more generous terms than he/she would in a formal foreclosure. Advantages to a lender include a reduction in the time and cost of a repossession, lower risk of borrower revenge (metal theft and vandalism of the property before sheriff eviction), and additional advantages if the borrower subsequently files for bankruptcy.
If there are any junior liens a deed in lieu is a less attractive option for the lender. The lender will likely not want to assume the liability of the junior liens from the property owner, and accordingly, the lender will prefer to foreclose in order to clean the title.
In order to be considered a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the indebtedness must be secured by the real estate being transferred. Both sides must enter into the transaction voluntarily and in good faith. The settlement agreement must have total consideration that is at least equal to the fair market value of the property being conveyed. Sometimes, the lender will not proceed with a deed in lieu of foreclosure if the outstanding indebtedness of the borrower exceeds the current fair value of the property. Other times, lenders will agree since they will end up with the property anyway and the foreclosure process is costly to the lender.
Because of the requirement that the instrument be voluntary, lenders will often not act upon a deed in lieu of foreclosure unless they receive a written offer of such a conveyance from the borrower that specifically states that the offer to enter into negotiations is being made voluntarily. This will enact the parol evidence rule and protect the lender from a possible subsequent claim that the lender acted in bad faith or pressured the borrower into the settlement. Both sides may then proceed with settlement negotiations.
Neither the borrower nor the lender is obliged to proceed with the deed in lieu of foreclosure until a final agreement is reached.
Edits from Deeds in lieu: merger doctrine does not apply where grantee is senior lienholder, By Benzion J Westreich & Scott C Cutrow, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (The full article was first published by the International Law Office.)
Lenders and borrowers faced with the default of a secured debt on real property have the option to work together to resolve the default. If the lender and borrower are cooperating, the simplest option is to let the property go through foreclosure, allowing the borrower to avoid wasting time and the purchaser in the foreclosure (perhaps the lender) to take over the property free of all junior liens. There may be pitfalls with this approach: for example, the lender may have some deficiency claims for a loan that is recourse. Or the property depreciates during the foreclosure process (eg, a non-judicial foreclosure in Arizona takes a minimum of 91 days and a judicial foreclosure will run a minimum of nine to twelve months. Both dates will be extended if bankruptcy is filed).
Under certain circumstances, the lender and the borrower will attempt to negotiate a deed in lieu of foreclosure transaction. A deed in lieu of foreclosure is the consensual transfer of title to the property from the borrower to the lender in order to avoid formal foreclosure proceedings. From the borrower’s perspective (even thought it may be incorrect), a deed in lieu may help the borrower avoid the stigma, public fallout and reduction in credit rating that might come as a result of foreclosure proceedings. A deed in lieu of foreclosure is a “foreclosure” as far as most creditors are concerned. Typically potential lenders will ask the borrower whether he, she or it has ever been involved in a foreclosure, trustee’s sale or a deed in lieu. Therefore, the deed in lieu, foreclosure or trustee’s sale will always be part of a borrower’s record.
For lenders the acceptance of a deed in lieu can help them to avoid foreclosure costs and potentially lengthy foreclosure proceedings. Lenders have also typically sought to retain the option to foreclose on a property after completing of the deed in lieu transaction if there are subordinate liens. Typically the savvy lenders do this by having a separate subsidiary take title to the property, subject to the existing loan, and providing in the documents that the loan survives (a ‘non-merger provision’). The credit consequences to the borrower on the subordinate lien is that there will be both a deed in lieu and a separate foreclosure on their credit report.
Deeds in lieu are beneficial in certain situations. It is extremely important that both the borrower and the lender obtain competent legal counsel before entering into the agreement.
Articles: Deed in Lieu and the Doctrine of Merger
ILLEGAL MORTGAGE SCHEMES: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Maryland Attorney General took action against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase for an illegal marketing-services-kickback scheme they participated in with Genuine Title, a now-defunct title company.