Showing posts with label foreclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreclosure. Show all posts

Jan 11, 2009

Mediators foresee gloom, doom in condo industry

  Bill and Susan Raphan.
Bill and Susan Raphan.
CANDACE WEST / MIAMI HERALD STAFF

mhatcher@MiamiHerald.com

Working for the state's Office of the Condominium Ombudsman is dirty, sometimes even ''disgusting,'' work, say Bill and Susan Raphan, who supervise the Fort Lauderdale satellite office.

The tempers, the misunderstandings, the complaining -- the slapping, the threats and, at least once, the brandishing of a firearm.

''You would not believe some of the things we see,'' said Susan Raphan, who with her husband began working, first as volunteers, for the office soon after the Florida Legislature created it in 2004.

Despite the job's tribulations, the Raphans said they know that more than 1.5 million condo owners in Florida depend on them as a resource for understanding the rights and responsibilities that come with condo living. And they find satisfaction in helping people. Of the 16,000 phone calls the office got last year, Bill Raphan said roughly 90 percent were from Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties and handled by Fort Lauderdale's staff of seven.

Their primary duties include acting as mediator between boards and angry owners, holding classes and seminars about condo law, and monitoring elections. But as the South Florida real estate market enters another year of soaring foreclosures and sinking home values, the Raphans expect a host of new problems they do not have the power to remedy -- condo associations entering bankruptcy, buildings closing and unit owners walking away from their long-held investments because they can't afford to carry the cost of empty units.

The reason: unpaid maintenance fees.

''It's a major problem,'' Bill Raphan said.

The Miami Herald sat down with Bill Raphan to discuss the issues facing condo dwellers.

Q: What are the biggest issues facing condo owners right now?

A: The condominium market, the problems in foreclosures, obviously, liens and delinquencies are a big problem right now. That's the biggest problem at this point, and it's up to the government to try to help us. There's not a lot our office can do. This is a national problem that is happening everywhere, but we have so many condominiums here. It's just more acute in this area.

Q: What kind of complaints have you been fielding?

A: People are complaining about foreclosures and their maintenance fees. I always explain it to them this way: Your condominium has to run like a business, and the business has to collect enough income to run the business, in this case, the association or the condominium itself. In order to maintain the property, you have to take in X amount of money. [The total amount needed] is like a big pie, and each person has a slice of that pie that they have to pay. So, for every person in your condo [who] is not paying, it means the slice of your pie gets bigger. In other words, if you're paying $100 a month and some people aren't paying, you might have to pay $110 or $120. You might have to pay $200, and there are places with 50 percent or more delinquencies. That means if you are paying $100 a month, you're going to pay $200 to keep that place going. People can't afford that nowadays. People are losing their jobs.

Q: What are condos doing to deal with the problem of budget shortages?

A: Some condominiums have actually eliminated their maintenance people, and they are cleaning up and doing things themselves. They've eliminated their landscapers and are cutting lawns. They've cut down as best they can on things they buy. The situation is very difficult. The people who are getting assessed that extra money are angry. They want something done, but there is not a lot that can be done.

Q: What about accusations that lenders are stalling foreclosures to avoid paying maintenance and association fees? Is there any truth to that

A: [Lenders] are not going to say they are stalling, but what condo owners are complaining about is a Florida statute that gives lenders a cap that says they don't have to pay more than six months of assessments or 1 percent of the value of the unit [before they foreclose on it. Then they must pay full association fees like other unit owners.] That's one of the things [Florida legislators] may be looking to change this year.

Q: Do you think there is a solution to getting lenders to pony up their share of maintenance fees?

A: It has to be legislative on any level, maybe even up to the federal government, who knows? It's a major thing. This is something that needs to be looked at on even a national level.

Q: What are the consequences of association-fee problems going unaddressed?

A: I know of several condominiums that are on the brink of people just walking out. They can't afford to maintain their units anymore. Their slice of the pie has become so big that they can't afford it. They are just packing up and leaving their largest investment because it doesn't pay for them to stay. You are going to be hearing about this very soon. This is going to be a real problem.

Q: So unit owners who've been in their condos for many years, who have equity in their condos and even may have paid off their mortgages, are still having to move because they can't afford maintenance fees?

A: Yes, and some condos can't take in even enough money to pay their water bills. They're shutting off the water. They're shutting off the electricity. They can't come up with the money because there are so many delinquencies. The few who are left can't come up with enough money to pay all the bills for everybody. It's sad.

Q: How do these problems affect sales in the buildings? I've heard it described as a ``death spiral.''

A: Sales are very poor because people don't have the money to buy, No. 1. And, they don't want to take over places with debt problems. Sales are very bad. Everything is very bad. Let's face it.

source:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/home/story/834433-p2.html

Dec 9, 2008

Majority of Modified Loans Fail Again, Regulator Says (Update3)

By Alison Vekshin

Dec. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Most U.S. mortgages modified in a voluntary effort to keep struggling borrowers in their homes and stem foreclosures fell back into delinquency within six months, the chief regulator of national banks said.

Almost 53 percent of borrowers whose loans were modified in the first quarter were more than 30 days overdue by the third quarter, John Dugan, head of the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said today at a housing conference in Washington.

“The results, I confess, were somewhat surprising, and I say that not in a good way,” Dugan said, citing a third-quarter survey his agency plans to release next week.

Lenders and loan-servicing companies have been modifying mortgages by lowering interest rates or creating repayment plans through the voluntary Hope Now Alliance. The group, which includes Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp., said last month it helped 225,000 borrowers keep their homes in October.

Foreclosures rose to a record in the third quarter as one in 10 U.S. homeowners fell behind on payments or were in foreclosure, the Mortgage Bankers Association said last week.

“Our third-quarter report will show many of the same disturbing trends as other recent mortgage reports,” Dugan said. “Credit quality continued to decline across the board, with delinquencies increasing for subprime, Alt-A and prime mortgages.”

The OCC’s survey represents institutions that service more than 60 percent of all first mortgages, or 35 million loans worth $6 trillion, Dugan said.

‘More Questions’

The data “raises more questions than answers because it fails to define, in any meaningful way, the modifications that have re-defaulted,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement.

The lack of detail makes it tough to distinguish “re- default rates of sustainable modifications versus cosmetic modifications that by their nature are more likely to re- default,” said Bair, who has proposed using $24 billion from the U.S. Treasury’s $700 billion financial-rescue package to modify 1.5 million mortgages through the end of 2009.

Dugan’s figures reflect a failed focus on interest rates in loan modifications, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said today in a Bloomberg Television interview. If companies were to cut the amount owed on mortgages, borrowers would be less likely to default again, Frank said.

“The people who made the bad loans or bought the bad loans from others need to realize” that they would be better off with principal reductions than with foreclosure, the Massachusetts Democrat said.

Foreclosure ‘Timeout’

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, speaking at the conference earlier today, urged a three- to six-month “timeout” on foreclosures, saying keeping people in their homes is necessary to correct a “deeply troubled” market.

“Housing markets and mortgage-finance markets are the fuel for this problem,” said Corzine, a Democrat and former chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “We need a systematic protocol and process.”

John Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, questioned whether the federal government should be more involved in foreclosure prevention.

“I do have a concern of allocating government resources with such a high rate of re-default,” said Reich, whose agency sponsored today’s National Housing conference

source: bloomberg.com

link to the original post:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZfUsedWrv5o&refer=home


Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://waterfrontlife.blogspot.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net

Dec 7, 2008

Predatory Lending - Are You a Victim?

With all of the finger-pointing and outcries about corrupt and greedy brokers and agents, every homeowner facing may feel victimized. And certainly, there was a of deception and outright in the during the boom years. But there are a few important to watch out for that may indicate the of a predatory company.

One of the clearest of predatory lending may be when homeowners or buyers are asked to sign documents that are completely blank or told to leave off the date. This gives the opportunity to backdate, forward-date, or fill in incorrect information on a application or disclosure forms, keeping important notices from the . When the time comes to close the loan, the buyers may receive a completely different loan than they originally were sold, but which curiously has what appears to be their signatures on all the required documents.

Closely related is the issue of being asked to sign documents that have blatantly misleading or false information on them. Inflating a family’s monthly income to qualify for a higher payment is nothing more than a set-up for down the road. Of course, some did this voluntarily and lied on their loan applications without the of their , but being asked by a loan originator to sign off on incorrect figures will lead to unintended consequences and possible or prosecution for .

Loan originators were also guilty during the bubble of putting homeowners in inappropriate with high or deadly interest adjustments. They persuaded the to go along with the loan in the hopes of refinancing in a year or two when their credit had improved. As is now known, however, most did not qualify for the mortgages in the first place and were unable to qualify for a once were raised and credit started becoming scarce. This helped lead directly to the crisis now facing the , as subprime never became prime; they just became sub-subprime.

Also, it is vitally important that homeowners, at the time of closing, carefully read the sales agreement and loan documents, especially the sales contract and in Lending . If there are any discrepancies, or the are being asked to sign for a loan that is different than the one they were promised, predatory lending may be being committed. In fact, should have copies of the closing documents at least 24 hours before the closing, and have reviewed them thoroughly and be ready to have any questions answered.

and brokers who relied on corrupt appraisers were also complicit in predatory schemes designed to boost their own at the expense of ’ abilities to pay their . Although homeowners want some appreciation of their properties, if they were originally sold a house at the top of an artificial market, an inflated appraisal may have been used. values should reflect the market conditions — not be inflated to the very highest amount that can be borrowed, putting the owners into a loan on a house that is not worth even close to what they pay for it.

Unfortunately, the amount of in the facilitated by the and the have led directly to a crisis of epic proportions. So many first time buyers and uneducated owners were taken of by lender misconduct and predatory that it is difficult to separate the unqualified who got in over their heads from the truly criminal companies that fraudulently induced this toxic debt. But if homeowners suspect they are a victim of in any way, they should the appropriate regulatory agencies and make sure to fight their in court for as long as it takes.

The ForeclosureFish website has been created to help homeowners research ways they can stop and defend against their ’s attempts to sell the house out from under them. The site describes various methods to use, including refinancing and modifications, along with more information about predatory lending and other lender misconduct. Visit ForeclosureFish to read more about various aspects of the process, as well as how to recover from a hardship: http://www.foreclosurefish.com/


source: offshoreblog.net

link to the original post:
http://offshoreblog.net/predatory-lending-are-you-a-victim/



Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://waterfrontlife.blogspot.com

www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net



Dec 3, 2008

Fla. called No. 1 in mortgage fraud

TAMPA — A national report released Tuesday said Florida leads the nation in mortgage fraud. Within the state, Tampa is second in the amount of suspicious loan activity.

As the report was being released, a federal jury in Broward County was returning guilty verdicts in a scam case that included $5-million in fraudulent mortgages.

Howard Gaines, a lawyer who worked as a title agent, was accused of falsifying closing documents.

Gaines has not been charged in connection with any of his work in Hillsborough County, where he processed one-third of the home sales by a Tampa tattoo parlor owner named Sang-Min Kim.

Sonny Kim, as he's known, was profiled in a St. Petersburg Times story Sunday that recounted his flipping of properties, about one-third of which have been foreclosed. The story pointed to some questionable mortgages, including one for $300,000 on a run-down house that now can be had for $35,000.

Gaines has not been charged with any crimes in connection with his work with Kim.

In the Broward case, prosecutors said Gaines, as a title agent, aided his co-conspirators in falsifying closing documents that made it look like borrowers could repay loans. When they didn't repay them, banks such as Wells Fargo, Wachovia and Washington Mutual were left with big losses.

Gaines, 57, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and two counts of mail fraud. He is scheduled to be sentenced in February. The maximum sentence is 45 years in prison. His attorney, Stephen Binhak, did not return a call seeking comment.

"I'd like to see him get more prison (time); he's done some bad things," said Doug Pollock, a property crimes expert who testified in the trial after reviewing several sales processed by Gaines' title company. "I think some prosecutor (in Hillsborough) will use this conviction to say, 'I want a piece of him, too.' "

The U.S. attorney in Tampa would not comment specifically on Gaines or Kim.

"I do think (Sunday's Times) story raises some concerns," said U.S. Attorney A. Brian Albritton. "The allegations that were made would fall in the range of something that our office would be interested in."

State authorities also declined to say whether they are investigating Kim or Gaines.

"This is being investigated by the appropriate authorities, but we can't comment further about this case," said Jerri Franz, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Financial Services.

Since 2004, Kim has bought and sold about 90 homes in some of Tampa's poorest neighborhoods. Property records show buyers paid Kim $10.7-million for homes he bought for $6.5-million.

Many homes that Kim sold ended up in foreclosure, meaning that many of the same banks that are now getting billions in a federal bailout were left with worthless property.

About half of the sales Gaines handled for Kim ended up in foreclosure when the borrowers defaulted on their mortgages.

Albritton said his office's numbers echo the report published Tuesday by the Mortgage Asset Research Institute in Reston, Va., which put Florida first in the nation in mortgage fraud and Tampa with the second-most cases of suspicious loan activity behind only Miami.

In October, a Clearwater man prosecuted by Albritton's office was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay $6.5-million in restitution for mortgage fraud. In June, the office, then under the direction of U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill, indicted four others in a commercial mortgage fraud scheme.

"Mortgage fraud, in its essence, comes down to lying," Albritton said. "The goal of this office, given the resources that we have, is to find the most significant cases involving those lies."

The FBI said it couldn't comment specifically about Kim or Gaines. "However, we would reassure the public that the FBI views mortgage fraud as a significant and growing crime problem," said Dave Couvertier, a spokesman for the Tampa FBI field office.

"Combating significant fraud in this area is a priority for us."

Staff researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Michael Van Sickler can be reached at (813) 226-3402 or mvansickler@sptimes.com

source: tampabay.com

link to the original post:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article924127.ece


Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://waterfrontlife.blogspot.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net


Dec 2, 2008

Crist Temporarily Suspends Foreclosures

Gov. Charlie Crist and representatives of major lenders announced Monday a 45-day moratorium on new foreclosure filings, which critics called a timid half-step toward helping homeowners in tough economic times.

Crist praised Alex Sanchez, president of the Florida Bankers Association, and Aletta Shutes of the Florida Credit Union League, for agreeing to give struggling homeowners a break through the holidays. He also announced where further federal money would go to help local governments buy abandoned properties and redevelop neighborhoods.

"Florida has the third-highest foreclosure rate in the nation. More than 166,000 households were impacted by foreclosure activities last month alone," Crist said. "We know that many families and homeowners are struggling."

Pounding his lectern, Crist stressed that the moratorium does not mean people can just skip their house payments or that investors can escape from commercial contracts. The governor said the 45-day break is not retroactive and applies only to occupied homesteads, not investment properties.

"This is to help people who really need help," Crist said. "This is not for somebody who went and bought a bunch of condos in South Florida in the spec market."

Sanchez urged homeowners to contact their bankers immediately if they are having financial difficulties. He said lenders don't want to throw people out of their homes, and if there is no mortgage fraud — a point he emphasized — banks will try to work out repayment arrangements.

"This is a reaffirmation of what our practice is in the banking industry in the state of Florida," Sanchez said of the 45-day breather. He praised Crist for "compassionate leadership and his reminder of what's really important."

Democrats scoffed at the agreement, saying it would do nothing for homeowners who lose their jobs or have fallen far behind in their house payments. State Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff said Crist "is only offering tone-deaf optimism and more of the same failed policies that left the Sunshine State in recession for the first time in 16 years and an average of 1,750 Floridians receiving foreclosure notices every day."

State Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, gave Crist credit for getting the lenders "to the table," but said the governor should issue a list of banks participating in the moratorium. He said "45 days is not a long enough moratorium. It doesn't include those families already in foreclosures and (Monday's) press conference left Floridians wondering if their bank is even included in the offer."

source: FloridaTrend.com

link to the original post:
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?aID=50189


Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://waterfrontlife.blogspot.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net


Dec 1, 2008

Buying bank-owned property

Dear Steve,
Late in 2007 we made an offer on a real estate owned (REO) property owned by a small bank. Our offer was substantiated by then-recent comparables, but was rejected outright. We tried to open another dialogue with the bank through their listing agent, but were told they had "zero interest" in negotiating with us. The house has been on the market for two years now! The bank, by the way, gets a two-star rating on the Bankrate Safe and Sound list. I wonder: What gives?
-- Kim L.


Dear Kim,
Good question. Your frustrations are not uncommon. Banks were never set up to be long-term holders of residential real estate, much less play the role of real estate negotiator or speculator. As you've found, some can be downright curmudgeonly to deal with.

Bank asset managers often have little or no real estate background and can be overwrought by high foreclosure volume or have their hands tied by market uncertainties and unrealistic parent-company expectations. Some smaller banks haven't dealt with enough volume to know how to streamline their dispositions.

Typically, an REO property gets relegated to an asset manager's already bulging portfolio after no one at the foreclosure auction or courthouse sale was willing to pay the institution's minimum. Even though banks today are selling off REO properties for, say 75 cents to 90 cents on the dollar, the bank in your case may have thought your initial offer was absurdly lowball and quickly dismissed it -- and you -- perhaps without justification.

Most bank asset managers will first get a broker's price opinion, or BPO, on a property and, in the case of this property, may have been inflated and never modified to reflect the falling market. Or, there may have been one or more liens on the house, which can drive up the price when those liens must be satisfied as part of the sale.

I would find an REO buyer's agent who is experienced in dealing with bank-foreclosed sales and who better knows the nuances of each bank's REO policies. Otherwise, you'll still be dealing directly with that same REO listing agent.

You and your agent may well benefit from resubmitting and redating the initial bid. You did submit comparables, but did you also furnish repair estimates or photos to justify your offer, assuming it was somewhat lower than those comparable sales?

If you're not dead-set on getting that house, but still seek an REO bargain, you might just have to move on to a more flexible bank. If you have a steely resolve and can afford to be even more patient in this instance, the bank's board and (or) shareholders are bound to start complaining soon about all the REO expenses eating into their already thin profit margins, which could loosen things up for more sales.


source: bankrate.com

link to the original post:
Buying bank-owned property


Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://waterfrontlife.blogspot.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net

Nov 12, 2008

U.S. moves to prop up those at risk of foreclosure

Bush administration directs Fannie and Freddie to ease mortgage terms, hopes to set standard for lenders

Headshot of Barrie McKenna

With a report from Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- In a sign that the U.S. housing crisis is getting worse, not better, the Bush administration and the mortgage industry are moving to stop a fresh wave of Americans from losing their homes to foreclosure.

The government yesterday directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease terms on hundreds of thousands of delinquent home loans. The announcement follows similar foreclosure prevention plans by major commercial banks, including Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., and JPMorgan & Chase Co. The bank said that Citigroup's efforts, for example, would save as many as 130,000 homeowners from foreclosure.

"We need to stop the downward spiral," said James Lockhart, director of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency.

This week's actions mark a renewed effort by the government and banks to tackle the heart of the mortgage crisis - the millions of American households losing their homes or threatened with foreclosure as the United States slides into recession. The various loan workout plans would touch roughly 1.6 million homeowners.

The move by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or guarantee nearly 60 per cent of all U.S. home mortgages, should set a standard for the rest of the industry, Mr. Lockhart said.

Anything that keeps homeowners out of foreclosure is a good thing, agreed Celia Chen of Moody's Economy.com. But she said these programs "only nibble at the problem."

Some U.S. authorities also criticized the plan as inadequate. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. head Sheila Bair said the plan "falls short of what is needed to achieve wide-scale modifications of distressed mortgages, particularly those held in private securitization trusts."

Those mortgages could prove much trickier to modify.

As many as 12 million homeowners are now "underwater" on their mortgages, meaning they owe more than their homes are worth, she said.

By the end of June, more than four million homeowners were behind on payments or in foreclosure, data from the Mortgage Bankers Association show. That represents 9 per cent of borrowers with a mortgage.

And Moody's Economy.com estimates that 8.5 million U.S. homeowners will default on their mortgages between 2008 and 2010. Roughly 5.2 million of them will lose their homes.

Troy Courtney, for example, left his Mill Valley, Calif., home after many attempts at a loan modification. Mr. Courtney had two loans on the house and could not persuade the loan manager to modify terms.

"I feel like I missed the boat," said the San Francisco police officer, 44.

Economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University said the underlying problem is that Americans have too much debt.

"You cannot grow yourself out of a debt problem," he said. "When debt to disposable income is too high, increasing the denominator with rebates is ineffective and only temporary. You need to reduce the debt."

The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan targets homeowners most at risk - those who've missed at least three loan payments, live in their homes and haven't declared bankruptcy. Under the arrangement, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will pay loan service companies $800 for every homeowner for which they arrange more affordable monthly payments (defined as 38 per cent of gross household income), either by cutting interest rates, extending loan terms or deferring payment of principal.

The program is set to begin Dec. 15.

Citigroup said it would target borrowers at risk of foreclosure by cutting interest rates to as low as 3 per cent and stretching payment periods to as long as 40 years.

"With the unemployment rate rising and rising, more and more borrowers are getting into financial distress because of loss of income," said Sanjiv Das, chief executive of CitiMortgage. "It is a problem the country will face for some time to come, so it is very important to reach out to borrowers before they become delinquent."

Even U.S. authorities acknowledge the plan has limitations. The government is not stepping in to forgive all or part of any mortgages.

"There is no silver bullet to address the housing downturn," said Neel Kashkari, the Treasury's interim assistant secretary for financial stability.

"We are experiencing a necessary correction and the sooner we work through it, the sooner housing can again contribute to our economic growth."

The scope of the problem is much larger than the relatively small part of the problem that is in the hands of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

The dismal shape of the housing market is making loan modifications increasingly tricky. As U.S. home prices continue falling, a growing number of homeowners are underwater on their mortgages.

These homeowners have little incentive to honour their debts, and many of them will choose to simply walk away from their homes.

And U.S. officials said most troubled mortgages are held by entities other than Fannie and Freddie.

Mr. Lockhart urged those lenders to follow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's lead. Beyond moral suasion, the government can't make that happen.

Economist Ed Yardeni said Fannie and Freddie remain "hobbled" by inadequate capital and so they are unable to vastly grow their mortgage portfolios. He urged the government to nationalize the two agencies, and let them lend as much as $2-trillion at a heavily discounted rate of 4 per cent.

"That would be a much more effective way to bail out the financial system, the housing market, and the economy," Mr. Yardeni said.

The Treasury Department seized the two government-created entities in early September because of their ailing finances.

A break for homeowners

Some of the biggest U.S. banks and mortgage companies plan to cut home-loan payments for borrowers facing foreclosures. Here are some of the current and planned initiatives to help homeowners avoid foreclosure:

Citigroup

Will reach out to about 500,000 homeowners with $20-billion in new mortgages during the next six months.

Helped about 370,000 people with $35-billion in mortgages avoid foreclosure since 2007.

Restructured more than 120,000 mortgages, including granting extensions, during the first half of 2008.

JPMorgan Chase

Will halt foreclosure on some loans as it works to make payments easier on $110-billion of problem mortgages.

Plans to assist 400,000 families with $70-billion in mortgage loans in the next two years.

Helped an additional 250,000 families with $40-billion in mortgages under existing loan-modification programs.

Bank of America

Will cover more than $120-billion in unpaid loan balances.

Announced two plans this year to help reduce customers' loan payments by as much as $11-billion.

Modified 226,000 loans this year.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

Will reduce principal or interest rates on some loans and extend terms of others.

Programs won't include money from the Treasury's $700-billion bank rescue package.

Source: Bloomberg

link to the original post:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081112.HOUSING12/TPStory/TPInternational/America/


Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net



Mortgage assistance plan could save the homes of many South Floridians

Troubled borrowers embroiled in the worst housing debacle in decades will get lifelines from the government and the banking industry.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency and other agencies said Tuesday they plan to speed up the process for renegotiating hundreds of thousands of past-due home loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Tuesday's announcement, along with recent loan-modification strategies from major banks, could go a long way toward easing the nation's housing slump.

"This will be a way to keep people paying their mortgages, staying in their homes and breathing a little bit," said Paula Siegel, 60, a Boynton Beach resident who hopes to benefit from a loan restructuring by Countrywide Financial Corp.

Citigroup, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase & Co. have agreed to modify delinquent mortgages after getting money from the federal government. As part of the $700 billion bailout, the U.S. Treasury is handing out cash to recapitalize struggling banks.

South Florida, in particular, has been hammered by plummeting home prices and foreclosures during the past few years. Many people stretched to buy homes they ultimately couldn't afford.

One in every 124 households in Broward County was in foreclosure in September, according to RealtyTrac, an Irvine, Calif.-based company. One in every 238 households is facing foreclosure in Palm Beach County. RealtyTrac is set to release October numbers on Thursday.

"It's time that the government is taking the bull by the horns and helping the people down at the bottom who need help the most," said Lew Freeman, a banking consultant in Fort Lauderdale and Miami.

Fannie and Freddie, taken over by the federal government in September, own or guarantee nearly 31 million U.S. mortgages. Officials do not yet have an estimate of how many people would qualify for the new program, which goes into effect Dec. 15.

Borrowers would have to be at least 90 days behind on their home loans and would need to owe 90 percent or more than the home is currently worth. Excluded would be investors who do not occupy their homes and borrowers who have filed for bankruptcy.

Borrowers would benefit by getting reduced interest rates and having loans extended from 30 years to 40 years. In some cases, the principal amount would be deferred interest-free.

"The most important element is the principal write-downs," said Brad Hunter, a housing analyst based in West Palm Beach. "Modifying loans to lower the interest rates helps some, but not enough."

Citigroup said late Monday it is freezing foreclosures for borrowers who live in their own homes, have good incomes and stand a decent chance of making lowered mortgage payments. The bank is targeting homeowners in Florida and other states with large unemployment and foreclosure rates. The program is expected to affect about $20 billion in mortgages.

Late last month, Chase expanded its mortgage modification program to an estimated $70 billion in loans.

There's no public record of large regional players such as Fort Lauderdale-based BankAtlantic and BankUnited of Coral Gables taking the government handouts, said Ken Thomas, a Miami-based economist and banking analyst. Until then, they may not be so willing to modify home loans, he said.

"Once they're approved for government assistance, I would expect them to follow a similar [loan-modification] program," Thomas said.

Bank of America said it will modify an estimated 400,000 loans held by newly acquired Countrywide as part of an $8.4 billion legal settlement reached with 11 states, including Florida, in early October.

Even though banks stand to lose money on the renegotiated mortgages, "they'll still have people in the houses protecting their interest," Thomas said. "The last thing you want to see in a neighborhood is newspapers out front and the grass three feet tall."

This report was supplemented by the Associated Press

Paul Owers can be reached at powers@sunsentinel.com or 561-243-6529.

source: sun sentinal

link to the original post:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-flzmortgage1112sbnov12,0,1949108.story

Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://www.lasolaslifestyles.com/
http://www.fortlauderdaleliving.net/

Nov 11, 2008

FHFA Modification Program Details

Here is the press release from the FHFA. Note that this does not include principal reduction as a solution to create an affordable payment, and is limited to: "extending the term, reducing the interest rate, and forbearing interest".

This is intended to help "thousands" (a drop in the bucket unless it is several hundred thousand), and seems to encourage homeowners to stop making payments until they are 90 days late.

Here are some excerpts:

Q: What is a streamlined modification?

A: A streamlined modification is a modification that requires less documentation and less processing. In this case, the streamlined modification seeks to create a monthly mortgage payment that is sustainable for troubled borrowers by targeting a benchmark ratio of housing payment to monthly gross household income.

Q: What is the benchmark ratio?

A: This is the first time the industry has agreed on an industry standard. The benchmark ratio for calculating the affordable payment is 38 percent of monthly gross household income. Once the affordable payment is determined, there are several steps the servicer can take to create that payment – extending the term, reducing the interest rate, and forbearing interest. In the event that the affordable payment is still beyond the borrower’s means, the borrower’s situation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis using a cash flow budget.

Q: Why is it necessary?

A: With the rise in serious delinquencies and increasing number of loans in foreclosure, this program will help borrowers who have missed three or more payments, but want to keep their homes. Because the eligibility requirements and process are streamlined and consistent, the program will allow servicers to reach more borrowers more quickly.

Q: Who is eligible?

A: The highest risk borrower, who has missed three payments or more, owns and occupies the property as a primary residence, and has not filed bankruptcy. The loan is a Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae or portfolio loan with participating investors. To qualify for the streamlined modification, the borrower must certify that he or she experienced a hardship or change in financial circumstances, and did not purposely default to obtain a modification.

Q: Why must the borrower be 90 days delinquent? Why not earlier in the delinquency cycle?

A: This is a streamlined solution targeted to reach the most at risk borrower. For borrowers who do not qualify, other solutions are available. This in no way substitutes for the meaningful efforts by all servicers and investors that are currently in place. The 212,000 workouts reported by HOPE NOIW in September are testimony to that fact. We will continue to see those efforts produce meaningful results.

Q: How many people will this help?

A: While difficult to assess, it is clear delinquencies are predicted to continue well into 2009. Foreclosure estimates are significant. Having a streamlined approach will assist many borrowers who default and more quickly. We estimate this will ultimately help thousands of borrowers.

Q: How do borrowers apply?

A: To be considered for the program, a seriously delinquent borrower should contact his or her servicer and provide the requested information – monthly gross household income, association dues and fees, and a hardship statement.

Q: How do borrowers complete the modification process?

A: Upon receiving the Modification Agreement from the servicer, the borrower signs it and returns it with the 1st payment at the modified terms along with income verification. Once the borrower makes three payments at the modified terms and the account is current as of day 90 of the modified plan, the modification is complete.

Q: When will servicers start offering this program?

A: We expect that by December 15th, servicers will be positioned to work with eligible borrowers.

source: calculated risk

link to the original post:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/fhfa-modification-program-details.html

Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net



Nov 10, 2008

Homeowners' safety net really wasn't

By Susan Taylor Martin and Carolyn Edds, Times Staff Writers
In print: Sunday, November 9, 2008

David Radtke of Sarasota channel surfs in his tiny one bedroom apartment. “I thought I was signing a mortgage (with Rechnitz),’’ says Radtke, 68. “Instead I signed over the house.’’ He says he lost many of his possessions when Rechnitz evicted him and, got the house, below.
David Radtke of Sarasota channel surfs in his tiny one bedroom apartment. “I thought I was signing a mortgage (with Rechnitz),’’ says Radtke, 68. “Instead I signed over the house.’’ He says he lost many of his possessions when Rechnitz evicted him and, got the house, below.


For homeowners who had defaulted on their mortgages, it sounded like a great deal. "WE SAVE HOMES FROM FORECLOSURE!'' read the fliers and door hangers. "We'll reinstate your mortgage in full.'' As Gideon Rechnitz, owner of St. Petersburg's Foreclosure Prevention Corp. explained it, investors would buy the houses, bring the mortgages up to date and stop the foreclosure. The sellers could then rent back their own homes with an option to repurchase within two years.

To make sure the sellers understood everything, Rechnitz videotaped the closings.

"We were very concerned with full disclosure of what we were doing,'' he says.

In fact, critics and many home­owners say, there was a lot that Rechnitz didn't fully disclose:

• That the main investor was Rechnitz, who has acquired dozens of houses in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Sarasota and Manatee counties since 2004 for less than their true market value.

• That homeowners who bought back their property could incur thousands of dollars in what one lawyer called "exorbitant'' charges.

• That even people who didn't repurchase their homes could still be liable for the mortgages if Rechnitz failed to make the payments.

Of the 106 people who signed up for Rechnitz's "foreclosure prevention program,'' nearly half lost their homes anyway. Many were confused by the legal documents he asked them to sign and were unable to meet the stringent rental and buyback conditions.

Yolanda Rodriguez, 70, once lived in a large home in Englewood, but now shares a small apartment with her brother Ted, 53. Rodriguez says she was scammed out of her home by investor Gideon Rechnitz.
[EDMUND D. FOUNTAIN Times]
Yolanda Rodriguez, 70, once lived in a large home in Englewood, but now shares a small apartment with her brother Ted, 53. Rodriguez says she was scammed out of her home by investor Gideon Rechnitz.

Rodriguez owed about $150,000 on this home in Englewood in 2005. It was worth as much as $300,000 at the time.
[EDMUND D. FOUNTAIN Times]
Rodriguez owed about $150,000 on this home in Englewood in 2005. It was worth as much as $300,000 at the time.

Foreclosure Prevention Corp. distributed these fliers to promote its business. Homeowners were also given a mock check like this one to show that the company would make mortgage payments that were in arrears.
Foreclosure Prevention Corp. distributed these fliers to promote its business. Homeowners were also given a mock check like this one to show that the company would make mortgage payments that were in arrears.


Among those who wish they had never joined the program is David Radtke, a Sarasota artist who has worked for Ringling Bros. and Disney on Ice. After falling behind on his payments during a long hospitalization, he deeded his house to a trust controlled by Rechnitz in 2005. He was evicted last year because he couldn't pay his rent or afford to buy back the house.

Radtke says he not only lost about $40,000 in equity in his home; he also lost many valuables including his airbrushes and a half-pound of German gold leaf "when deputies ran me off my property.''

"I thought I was signing a mortgage,'' says Radtke, 68. "Instead I signed over the house.''

A helping hand

Rechnitz' first brush with controversy came in the 1980s with his Timeshare Owners Foundation.

With the number of timeshare units for sale far exceeding demand, the company had an attractive pitch: Owners could pay $295 to have their units marketed through real estate brokers nationwide. If the unit didn't sell in a year, they would get a $1,000 government bond.

More than 22,000 owners signed up, but many complained that they never got a single inquiry, let alone found a buyer. And they discovered the bond had a current value of only $65.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Rechnitz and wife Patricia, who did not admit wrongdoing, but agreed to refund $1.25-million to customers. The Florida Real Estate Commission accused Rechnitz of fraud in connection with his timeshare dealings and revoked his real estate license in 1990.

By 2004, Rechnitz had found a new group of customers — people who had substantial equity in their homes but had defaulted on mortgage payments because of sickness, job loss or other factors.

"Don't let the bank take your home," his fliers urged.

Those who called for details got a visit from Thomas S. Cook, a Rechnitz associate and golfing buddy. Cook would outline the "program understanding.'' The owners could sell their homes at a "discount'' — meaning less than market value - and rent them back for roughly the same amount as the mortgage payment. They also had an option to buy back the house.

The next step was the videotaped closing, where Rechnitz explained the rental terms: If tenants were even a day late with the rent, they could be evicted and lose their property for good. By selling, he told them, they would lose their homestead exemption, resulting in tax increases that would make their rent go up.

The most complex — and confusing — part of the program was the transfer of ownership. Instead of simply selling to Rechnitz, the homeowner signed a warranty deed that gave title and all rights to a "family trust,'' with Rechnitz or his Garco Inc., listed as trustee. That meant Rechnitz could sell the property or do anything else he wanted with it.

Keeping the seller's name on the trust also was a major benefit to Rechnitz. The bank might not realize the property had been sold, and thus Rechnitz could make payments without triggering a due-on-sale clause, requiring the mortgage to be immediately paid in full.

"It may keep the sale off the radar,'' says Thomas M. Ramsberger, a St. Petersburg attorney who reviewed some of the deeds for the St. Petersburg Times.

Ramsberger says the family trusts were "not the norm.''

"You don't see this with property owners — especially with a homestead — putting their property in a trust and naming some unrelated person as a trustee,'' Ramsberger says. "It certainly doesn't feel very right about how they're going about this stuff.''

Rechnitz says the purpose of the trusts was not to hide anything from lenders, but rather to protect assets and provide "anon­ymity for investors.'' He said there were investors besides himself, but declined to identify them.

'A crafty . . . scheme'

The transactions had other unusual aspects.

Closing statements obtained by the Times show that the homeowners received no money from the sale, partly because they were assessed extra fees that included several thousand dollars for "preforeclosure administration'' that went to Profitmax — a company of which Rechnitz, 61, is the sole officer and director.

Sellers were also assessed a fee of as much as $3,000 that went to Cook for "foreclosure intervention.'' Cook sometimes notarized the legal documents himself even though state law forbids notary publics from notarizing transactions in which they have a financial interest.

Rechnitz said he was unaware of the law and Cook would not comment for this story. (Cook's notary license has since expired.)

And in at least one case in 2005, Cook paid a bankruptcy preparer $175 to draw up the paperwork so a St. Petersburg man whose house was due to be sold at public auction could declare Chapter 13.

The bankruptcy filing automatically stopped the sale and bought time for the homeowner, Dewey Archambault III, to transfer title to the "Archambault Family Trust'' with Rechnitz's company as trustee. But Archambault didn't pay his rent and was soon evicted.

In a letter to Rechnitz, Archambault's attorney accused him of a "crafty fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme'' and demanded he return the title.

On the same day the letter was dated, Nov. 17, 2005, Rechnitz's company resigned as trustee. The new trustee, Kenneth Rowland, quickly sold the house for $140,000. After the mortgage payoff, the proceeds came to as much as $100,000, records show.

Rechnitz says Rowland bought the house from him, and that the transfer of trusteeship was part of the sale, not a move to avoid legal action. (Rowland would not comment.)

"We made some money,'' Rechnitz says, "and I hope Mr. Rowland made some money when he sold the house, too.''

Kicked to the curb

The Florida Bar began investigating Rechnitz in 2006, based on a complaint from an assistant Manatee County attorney who had learned that a house partly paid for with county funds had been sold to the "Williams Family Trust'' without the county's knowledge or permission.

Assistant County Attorney James Cooney also found that the buyer — Rechnitz — had prepared trust documents, filed lawsuits and taken other steps that could constitute "the unauthorized practice of law,'' Cooney told the Bar.

The Bar investigation revealed other homeowners who thought they had been duped.

Among them was 70-year-old Yolanda Rodriguez, who lived with her deaf brother in a 2,300-square-foot pool home in Englewood. So ill that she had wasted away to 70 pounds, she accepted Rechnitz' offer of help when she defaulted on her mortgage.

"I wasn't thinking straight,'' she says. "I could have gotten an equity loan because I had plenty of equity.''

Instead, she deeded her house to Rechnitz's company, and began renting it back for $1,525. A video­tape that Rechnitz gave the Bar shows him explaining the program to Rodriguez though she appears confused when told she had to give 30 days notice to buy back the house.

Rodriguez: I don't understand that. What do you mean a 30-day notice?

Rechnitz: Once you've arranged to buy the house back.

Rodriguez: Isn't that what I'm doing?

Rechnitz: No, what you're doing now, you've sold the house.

Rodriguez: Oh, okay.

Rodriguez says she stopped paying rent because Rechnitz wouldn't answer her phone calls about promised roof repairs. In 2006, he evicted brother and sister and had all their possessions, including family photos, loaded into portable storage units. Rodriguez says she was unable to retrieve her items because they were stored in Rechnitz's name. Everything was then sold at public auction.

The Rodriguezes spent the next few months in cheap hotels and a Salvation Army shelter, finally landing in a tiny one-bedroom apartment with donated furniture.

On Rodriguez's behalf, Gulfcoast Legal Services is suing Rechnitz. In a deposition, he acknowledged the house could have been worth $300,000 or more at the time, far more than the $150,000 Rodriguez owed. He tersely described his transaction with her.

"She didn't come with any money,'' he said. "She didn't leave with any money.'' Rechnitz is now renting the house to a young couple with an option to buy.

'Not the bad guy'

Rechnitz says 36 home­owners have bought back their properties. Not all were happy with the terms.

After suffering a heart attack and falling behind in his payments, Daniel Peragine, 54, sold his Hillsborough County home and rented it back. The closing statement shows he was assessed $31,415 for "reinstatement'' and $6,100 in fees to Cook and Rechnitz.

Peragine says Rechnitz failed to make some mortgage payments, thus increasing the amount he had to refinance when he bought back the house in 2006. In all, his lawyer complained to Rechnitz, repurchasing the house cost Peragine nearly $80,000 more than he had been led to believe.

"These charges are exorbitant, unjustified, illegal and fraudulent,'' attorney Jeffrey Myers wrote.

Rechnitz denies missing any payments, and says homeowners agreed to all charges listed in the closing statements.

"We're not the bad guy you'd like to paint us,'' he told the Times. "We've saved a lot of families from losing their homes. I would not do to anybody else what I would not want done to me.''

Peragine and others also say it was unclear to them that they would lose their homestead exemptions when they transferred title to a trust.

William Rae, a Largo consultant, says his property taxes had jumped so much — from $800 to $2,400 — by the time he bought back his house, he is afraid of losing it again.

"That's the thing that bugged me most — the way we understood it was, we would never lose the homestead,'' says Rae, 52. "That added to the problem I'm in right now trying to hang on to my house.''

Rechnitz acknowledges he could have stressed the loss of exemption more than he did. But he denies a deliberate attempt to mislead homeowners.

The Bar's investigation ended last year with Rechnitz signing a cease-and-desist affidavit, but admitting no wrongdoing. He provided letters from 20 homeowners praising their dealings with him; many were worded almost identically and Rechnitz acknowledges requiring some people to sign positive letters as a condition of getting their houses back.

Worse yet to come?

Rechnitz says he hasn't done any foreclosure preventions since last year "because the market just ceased to exist.''

"Most (people) have no equity in their homes,'' he says.

Rechnitz is still renting to 23 people who hope to buy back their houses. Some have been late with their rent, but "we choose to work with them and give them the opportunity to catch up,'' he says.

However, the mortgages on those 23 homes and several other houses are still in the original owner's name, meaning they would be responsible for the mortgage if Rechnitz stopped making payments.

"A lot of people think that moving title to the property absolves them of the debt obligation, but that's not true,'' says Ramsberger, the attorney who reviewed the deeds.

Homeowners might be better off giving the bank a deed in lieu of foreclosure instead of deeding title and paying rent to a third party who has no legal obligation to pay the mortgage, Ramsberger says.

"That just prolongs it,'' he says, "and then they've wasted a lot of money with him as he waits for them to default.''

Several people who deeded their homes to Rechnitz as trustee say they did not realize they could still be liable for the mortgage. Rechnitz says he told everyone that the mortgage would stay in their name, and assumed they understood that they were ultimately responsible for the debt.

To date, though, "I've never missed a payment,'' he says.

And what would happen if Rechnitz, who acknowledges his own cash flow is "not great,'' can't make the payments?

"We'll address that when it comes to that.''

Susan Taylor Martin can be contacted at susan@sptimes. Carolyn Edds can be contacted at cedds@sptimes.com.

source: st petersburg times

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article896240.ece

Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com

www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net



Nov 6, 2008

Tax Consequences of Foreclosure, Short Sale and Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure


by Christopher M. Riser

Introduction

A distressed real property owner facing the prospect of a foreclosure, short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure may be surprised to discover that these events can lead to income taxation of capital gain or cancellation of indebtedness (“COD”) income. For purposes of this article, I’ll use the term “distressed property disposition” to refer to a foreclosure, short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure.

The tax results of a distressed property disposition depend on whether the loan is a “recourse” loan or a “non-recourse” loan. If a lender’s sole option for recovering on the loan is to take back the property, it is a non-recourse loan. The non-recourse aspect of a loan may be spelled out in the loan documents, or it may be a matter of state law, as it often is in the case of purchase-money loans and seller-financed loans for owner-occupied residential property. If the lender can pursue the borrower personally for any shortfall, it is a recourse loan. In situations where there is a shortfall on a recourse loan, the lender is supposed to send the IRS and the borrower a form 1099-C reporting the borrower’s COD income.

Non-Recourse Loan Tax Consequences

In the case of a distressed property disposition with a non-recourse loan, the disposition is taxed as if it were sold for the greater of the outstanding debt or the sales price. The nature of the gain and the deductibility of any loss depend on the holding period and the nature of the property as with any other disposition. The following examples are simplified. Adjusted tax basis for calculating gains and losses can be affected by more than just purchase price and depreciation; and the deemed sales price in a disposition by a deed in lieu of foreclosure includes past due interest, but may be offset by a deduction for that interest.

Example #1 (Non-Recourse Loan)

Ann owes $500,000 on her personal residence she bought for $700,000, which now has a market value of $400,000. Ann is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if she sold the property for $500,000, and she has a personal loss of $200,000, which is not deductible.

Example #2 (Non-Recourse Loan)

Bill owes $1,000,000 on his personal residence he bought for $950,000, which now has a market value of $1,050,000. Bill is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if he sold the property for $1,050,000, and he has a gain of $50,000, which may be excludible from income if Bill meets the 2-year ownership and residency test of IRC Sec. 121.

Example #3 (Non-Recourse Loan)

Carla owes $1,000,000 on a commercial property she bought for $1,100,000, which is now worth $800,000. She has taken $200,000 in depreciation deductions. Carla is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if she sold the property for $1,000,000. Carla is taxed as if she had sold the property for $1,000,000, and she has taxable depreciation recapture of $100,000.

Recourse Loan Tax Consequences

For a loan to be treated as a recourse loan, the lender must have the ability to pursue the borrower personally under the terms of the loan document and under state law. Generally, that means that if the property brings the lender less than the outstanding loan amount, the lender must obtain a “deficiency judgment.” As a practical matter, in many states, this often does not happen, because it involves more legal work and usually does not pay off for lenders. However, don’t be surprised to see junk debt collectors getting into this market, in which case, we may see more deficiency judgments than in the past.

In the case of a distressed disposition of property subject to a recourse loan, in addition to the potential income and gain resulting from the sale for value, there also may be COD income if the debt exceeds the value of the property. COD income is taxed at ordinary income rates.

Example #4 (Recourse Loan)

Don owes $500,000 on his personal residence he bought for $700,000, which now has a market value of $400,000. He lives in a state where lenders can pursue deficiency judgments against residential borrowers. Don is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if he sold the property for $500,000, and he has a loss of $200,000, which is not deductible. He also has COD income of $100,000.

Example #5 (Recourse Loan)

Ethel owes $900,000, on a recourse basis, on a luxury condo investment property she bought for $1,000,000, which now has a market value of $600,000. She has taken $100,000 in depreciation deductions. Ethel is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if she sold the property for $900,000. She has COD income of $300,000, and a long-term capital loss of $300,000.

Example #6 (Recourse Loan)

Frank owes $2,000,000, on a recourse basis, on a commercial property he bought for $500,000, which now has a market value of $1,500,000. He has taken $200,000 in depreciation deductions. Frank is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if he sold the property for $2,000,000. He has COD income of $500,000, depreciation recapture of $200,000, and a long-term capital gain of $1,000,000.

Exceptions to Taxability of COD Income

COD income is not taxable if the debt is discharged as part of a bankruptcy proceeding. In addition, some or all of the COD income may not taxable if you are insolvent at the time the debt is cancelled. For example, if you owns assets with a fair market value of $2,000,000 and has liabilities of $2,250,000, only $250,000 (the amount by which he is insolvent) can be excluded if the liabilities are discharged. Determining insolvency for these purposes can be complex, and the assistance of a tax professional likely will be required to make this determination. However, the excluded COD income will reduce other tax attributes such as basis, current and carryover losses, etc. So, COD income could still give rise to additional tax, even if it is excluded from current income.

There are also exceptions for COD income arising from the cancellation of qualified farm indebtedness and qualified business indebtedness. However, qualified business indebtedness likely will not include loans for commercial or residential rental property.

Example #7 (Insolvency)

Gina owes $3,000,000, on a recourse basis, on a commercial property she bought for $1,000,000, which now has a market value of $2,500,000. She has taken $300,000 in depreciation deductions. She is taxed on a distressed disposition of the property as if she sold the property for $3,000,000. She has COD income of $500,000. However, after the discharge of the debt, she is solvent only by $200,000., so $300,000 of the $500,000 COD income is not taxable, and instead will reduce other tax attributes, such as her $100,000 ordinary loss carryover from last year. So, she has taxable COD income of $200,000, depreciation recapture of $300,000, her ordinary loss carryover is reduced by $100,000 to zero, and her basis in the property is reduced by $200,000, so that she has a long-term capital gain of $1,700,000.

Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007

Finally, in late 2007, Congress provided some relief from taxation of COD income in the case of “Qualified Principal Residence Indebtedness.” QPRI is a loan secured by the principal residence used to acquire, construct or substantially improve the residence. For refinances, this amount is capped at $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 for a married person filing a separate return).

Under the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, IRC Sec. 108(a)(1)(E) was added and provides that for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009, COD income from QPRI is not taxed. However, it’s not a complete freebie. As with the insolvency exception, any reduction of indebtedness under the QPRI exception will reduce the basis in the property. So, this could still give rise to capital gain.

Example #8 (QPRI)

Harry and Helga owe $2,000,000 on their personal residence, which they bought several years ago for $1,000,000, and which is now worth $1,500,000. They live in a state where lenders can pursue deficiency judgments against residential borrowers. They are taxed on a distressed disposition of the property in 2008 as if they sold the property for $2,000,000. They have $500,000 of COD income, but it is not taxable. However, their basis is reduced by $500,000, so they have a capital gain of $1,000,000, of which $500,000 is excludable under IRC Sec. 121 as gain on the sale of a principal residence. So, they will be taxed on $500,000 of capital gain.


source: www.risad.com


Fort Lauderdale & Real Estate Blog

Rory Vanucchi

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com

www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net

RoryVanucchi@gmail.com