This is our first day back from the excellent convention hosted by Douglas Elliman at the Borgata in Atlantic City. The event was spectacular and the real estate agents at Elliman should be proud. At the event we launched our newest continuing education course, Deal Killers and taught agents how to avoid deal killers in order to save their deals. We also taught Conflicts of Interest, which fulfills NAR's ethics requirement for members of HANFRA, LIBOR, and HGAR. There were many other terrific speakers who attended the event and I had the opportunity to see Bette Midler and Randi Zuckerberg. All in all it was a great experience. Thanks.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
On October 9, 2012, New York's highest Court heard the case of Douglas Elliman LLC v. Tretter.
To watch the Court's oral arguments, click here and click on the button for webcast.
During the arguments, the Court was faced with the issue of the extent of a broker's fiduciary duty when working as an exclusive agent for a seller and concurrently trying to have potential customers become customers or clients of the broker on different homes / apartments.
The Tretters argument was that if you have an exclusive a broker can't show prospective purchasers another property, especially not one that is not an exclusive listing at your brokerage house.
Douglas Elliman suggested the following rule to the Court: "A broker can show a buyer other properties, the broker can be informative, can be honest, can be straightforward, but cannot prefer the property over the property of their principal". As restated by counsel to Douglas Elliman, the rule is: "The broker can be informative and honest about the unit, but cannot sell the unit over their principal".
While hearing the arguments, the Court focused greatly on a case that they heard back in 2001, called Sonnenschein v. Douglas Elliman. To read the prior case, click here.
The precedent discussed in Tretter from the Sonnenschein decision is as follows:
This Court has not addressed the parameters of a real estate broker's duty under these circumstances. Other jurisdictions have held that, in the absence of an agreement with a principal to the contrary, a broker owes no duty to refrain from “offering the properties of all [its] principals to a prospective customer” (Coldwell Banker Commercial Group v. Camelback Off. Park, 156 Ariz. 226, 230, 751 P.2d 542, 546; *376 McEvoy v. Ginsberg, 345 Mass. 733, 737, 189 N.E.2d 546, 547; see generally, Foley v. Mathias, 211 Iowa 160, 233 N.W. 106; Lemon v. Macklem, 157 Mich. 475, 122 N.W. 77). We find this approach to be consistent with the nature and fundamental requirements of the real estate marketplace in New York. Unless a broker and principal specifically agree otherwise, a broker cannot be expected to decline a prospective purchaser's request to see another property listed for sale with that broker. Any other rule would unreasonably restrain a broker from simultaneously representing two or more principals with similar properties for fear of ***67 **862 violating a fiduciary obligation in the event a buyer chose the property of one principal over that of another. Similarly, such a limitation would frustrate the interests of sellers, who benefit from the opportunity to market their properties to as many potential purchasers as possible, as well as the interests of potential buyers, who often request exposure to a number of properties in order to select the one most suitable to their needs and budget. For these reasons, we decline to impose upon all broker/principal relationships the restrictive view of broker duty that plaintiffs espouse. Of course, a principal remains free to enter into an explicit agreement with a broker to achieve such an exclusive arrangement.
We will stay focused on the decision, but the oral arguments are terrific and both attorneys represented their clients well.
To watch the Court's oral arguments, click here and click on the button for webcast.
During the arguments, the Court was faced with the issue of the extent of a broker's fiduciary duty when working as an exclusive agent for a seller and concurrently trying to have potential customers become customers or clients of the broker on different homes / apartments.
The Tretters argument was that if you have an exclusive a broker can't show prospective purchasers another property, especially not one that is not an exclusive listing at your brokerage house.
Douglas Elliman suggested the following rule to the Court: "A broker can show a buyer other properties, the broker can be informative, can be honest, can be straightforward, but cannot prefer the property over the property of their principal". As restated by counsel to Douglas Elliman, the rule is: "The broker can be informative and honest about the unit, but cannot sell the unit over their principal".
While hearing the arguments, the Court focused greatly on a case that they heard back in 2001, called Sonnenschein v. Douglas Elliman. To read the prior case, click here.
The precedent discussed in Tretter from the Sonnenschein decision is as follows:
This Court has not addressed the parameters of a real estate broker's duty under these circumstances. Other jurisdictions have held that, in the absence of an agreement with a principal to the contrary, a broker owes no duty to refrain from “offering the properties of all [its] principals to a prospective customer” (Coldwell Banker Commercial Group v. Camelback Off. Park, 156 Ariz. 226, 230, 751 P.2d 542, 546; *376 McEvoy v. Ginsberg, 345 Mass. 733, 737, 189 N.E.2d 546, 547; see generally, Foley v. Mathias, 211 Iowa 160, 233 N.W. 106; Lemon v. Macklem, 157 Mich. 475, 122 N.W. 77). We find this approach to be consistent with the nature and fundamental requirements of the real estate marketplace in New York. Unless a broker and principal specifically agree otherwise, a broker cannot be expected to decline a prospective purchaser's request to see another property listed for sale with that broker. Any other rule would unreasonably restrain a broker from simultaneously representing two or more principals with similar properties for fear of ***67 **862 violating a fiduciary obligation in the event a buyer chose the property of one principal over that of another. Similarly, such a limitation would frustrate the interests of sellers, who benefit from the opportunity to market their properties to as many potential purchasers as possible, as well as the interests of potential buyers, who often request exposure to a number of properties in order to select the one most suitable to their needs and budget. For these reasons, we decline to impose upon all broker/principal relationships the restrictive view of broker duty that plaintiffs espouse. Of course, a principal remains free to enter into an explicit agreement with a broker to achieve such an exclusive arrangement.
We will stay focused on the decision, but the oral arguments are terrific and both attorneys represented their clients well.
Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Global company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy as a result of a judgment obtained by The Learning Annex for $24M. Kiyosaki is the famed author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". While many are reporting this in a mocking manner in that Kiyosaki is famed for telling people how to make money, I believe its yet another example of Kiyosaki's message in a positive light.
The message is to separate your assets into different entities that are independent of each other. As a result of Kiyosaki's entity structures, its reported that he is still worth around $80M after the bankruptcy without any of the money being in jeopardy. Now, that is a good benchmark for success.
To read more about Kiyosaki's bankruptcy, go to a great article by businessinsider.com by clicking here.
The message is to separate your assets into different entities that are independent of each other. As a result of Kiyosaki's entity structures, its reported that he is still worth around $80M after the bankruptcy without any of the money being in jeopardy. Now, that is a good benchmark for success.
To read more about Kiyosaki's bankruptcy, go to a great article by businessinsider.com by clicking here.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Wells
Fargo was sued yesterday by the US Attorney's office for mortgage fraud because
it allegedly certified loans improperly. The lawsuit seeks hundreds of millions
of dollars in damages. The lawsuit was brought under the False Claims Act and the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. The lawsuit
deals specifically with the lender's participation in the FHA's Direct
Endorsement Lender Program.
Basically, the lawsuit says that FHA had to pay millions
in insurance for defaulted loans based upon receiving inaccurate information by
Wells.
This is yet another example about how the days of the smoke in the mirror test are over & lenders are now required to perform necessary due diligence to ensure that borrowers should be given loans.
To read the US
Attorney's Press Release concerning this lawsuit, click here.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
I am delighted to share a link to this month's The Suffolk Lawyer, which is the official publication of the Suffolk County Bar Association.
This month's edition Focuses on Real Property. Click here to read the publication.
Inside, you can read articles such as "Accommodating Companion Animals" written by the leading experts on the topic over at Jackson Lewis; or you can learn to "Avoid Non-Payment" by the likes of Alicia M. Menechino; and don't every forget the need for a Buyer's Real Estate Agent in a terrific article by Denise Langweber and her daughter Rebecca entitled "Buyer Beware"; or there is "The Diligence That is Due" by Lance Pomerantz; and lastly everything you need to know about transactions for "Residential Waterfront Properties" by the refined Heather Wright.
I owe a debt of gratitude to these authors for making my task as the Special Section Editor for Real Property one of the best experiences of my professional life.
This month's edition Focuses on Real Property. Click here to read the publication.
Inside, you can read articles such as "Accommodating Companion Animals" written by the leading experts on the topic over at Jackson Lewis; or you can learn to "Avoid Non-Payment" by the likes of Alicia M. Menechino; and don't every forget the need for a Buyer's Real Estate Agent in a terrific article by Denise Langweber and her daughter Rebecca entitled "Buyer Beware"; or there is "The Diligence That is Due" by Lance Pomerantz; and lastly everything you need to know about transactions for "Residential Waterfront Properties" by the refined Heather Wright.
I owe a debt of gratitude to these authors for making my task as the Special Section Editor for Real Property one of the best experiences of my professional life.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
The Federal Trade Commission has promulgated regulations to "help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. [section] 45".
To read the FTC's press release concerning the Green Guides, click here.
For a Summary of the Green Guides, click here.
For the complete Green Guides, click here.
To learn more about these Green Guides and how they relate to Long Island Real Estate, register for our upcoming continuing education course, "To be Green or not to be Green" by clicking here.
To read the FTC's press release concerning the Green Guides, click here.
For a Summary of the Green Guides, click here.
For the complete Green Guides, click here.
To learn more about these Green Guides and how they relate to Long Island Real Estate, register for our upcoming continuing education course, "To be Green or not to be Green" by clicking here.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
The National Mortgage Settlement Takes
Effect: An Update to “Robosigning Settlements” from February 9, 2012
The National Mortgage Settlement between the Attorney
Generals of 49 States and five banks and mortgage servicers (Ally/GMAC, Bank of
America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) takes full effect today.
For Borrowers that are eligible under this Settlement, it
provides sweeping changes in the modification process, servicing of loans,
payments to the States and possible payments to borrowers who have already lost
their homes in foreclosure.
Perhaps, one of the most important changes for borrowers attempting
to modify their mortgage at the same time as being in active foreclosure, the settlement
agreement will greatly inhibit “dual tracking” of borrowers. “Dual Tracking”
occurs when a borrower is in active foreclosure litigation at the same time as
attempting to modify their loan.
Prior to today, the foreclosure litigation continued
in earnest, at the same time borrowers were being evaluated for a loan
modification. In the past, many borrowers submitted loan modification
applications but lost their homes to foreclosure before their applications were
reviewed by the lender.
Although the Directives under the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP), specifically states that “Foreclosure sales may not be conducted
while the loan is being considered for a modification or during the trial
period”, this was of no assistance to borrowers with lenders and/or servicers,
that did not participate in HAMP.
As delineated in the “Servicing Standards Highlights” on the
New York State Attorney General’s National Mortgage Settlement webpage, some of
the key features of the Dual Track restrictions are as follows:
C. Dual track
restricted
1.
Pre-foreclosure referral
* If bank/servicer receives a complete
loan modification application by day 120 of delinquency, bank/servicer must
review and make a determination on the application prior to referring the loan
to foreclosure.
* If bank/servicer receives a
substantially complete loan modification application by day 120 of delinquency,
bank/servicer must provide borrower an additional 10 days in which to complete
the application. If bank/servicer
receives a complete application by the end of the 10-day extension,
bank/servicer must review and make a determination on the application prior to
referring the loan to foreclosure.
2.
Post Foreclosure Referral
* Once a loan has been referred to
foreclosure, if the borrower submits a complete loan modification application
within 30 days after the attorney letter is sent to the borrower, the
bank/servicer must not move for a foreclosure judgment or seek a foreclosure
sale until it has completed its review and determination of the
application. If servicer offers the borrower
a loan modification, the servicer must continue to delay any action in the
foreclosure proceeding until the borrower accepts or denies the offer. If the borrower accepts the offer, the
foreclosure proceeding is suspended unless the borrower fails to perform on the
loan modification. The borrower may accept verbally, in writing or by making
the first trial payment.
* If borrower submits a complete loan
modification at any time after 30 days following the mailing of the attorney
letter but prior to 37 days before a scheduled foreclosure sale, the servicer
must complete its review of the application prior to going to foreclosure
sale. If the servicer offers the borrower
a loan modification, servicer must delay the sale if necessary to provide the
borrower 14 days in which to accept or deny the offer, and, if the borrower
accepts, must continue to delay the sale unless the borrower fails to perform
on the modification.
* If borrower submits a complete loan
modification with 37 to 15 days before a scheduled foreclosure sale, the
servicer shall conduct an expedited review.
If the servicer offers the borrower a loan modification, servicer must
delay the sale to provide the borrower 14 days in which to accept or deny the
offer, and, if the borrower accepts, must continue to delay the sale until the
borrower fails to perform on the modification.
There are many more details and assistance to borrowers
in this monumental Settlement. The impact the Settlement has on the struggling
housing market, remains to be seen. With actual oversight of lender compliance, enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and assistance to borrowers by providing contact information about organizations to aid borrowers, through the Office of Mortgage
Settlement Oversight and the National Mortgage Settlement Administrator and State Attorney General’s Offices, perhaps this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, other lenders, that are not parties to the
Settlement,will voluntarily adopt similar Servicing Rules. Such a voluntary act would certainly assist the entire Industry and create uniformity, which would positively impact the struggling
housing market.
For more information please visit:
The New York State
Attorney General’s Settlement info at:
The National Mortgage
Settlement Administrator:
The Office of
Mortgage Settlement Oversight:
https://www.mortgageoversight.com/Tuesday, October 02, 2012
During our recent class on Property Management I was asked about Capitalization Rates for property in Long Island. A great website to get this type of information and other commercial real estate statistics is ReisReports. Click here to visit their site.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
I am often asked how someone can get into commercial real estate. My general response is that a first step is to read literature on financial statements so that you can understand the money driver behind the industry. I suggest watching talks from leading developers, which can be found at i Tunes U. Its also important to read a form lease and to look up all of the terms so that you can gain a basic understanding of the language of the industry. Yet, what can be done that takes less self-discipline to get someone motivated, kind of a jump start?
I suggest joining one of these five (5) regional organizations to meet, network and discuss your passions and you can see if commercial real estate is really right for you.
Go to the website, look up when a meeting is happening, drive to the meeting, introduce yourself around the room and you are half way there. You will gain mentors and friends that can help you along the way.
Also, keep your eyes open for this year's Long Island Commercial Real Estate Convention and come experience the leading service providers to the industry and take a seminar or two to sharpen your skills.
I suggest joining one of these five (5) regional organizations to meet, network and discuss your passions and you can see if commercial real estate is really right for you.
Website
|
Name
|
Topic
|
Long Island Real Estate Investment Association
|
Real estate investment club for brokers
|
|
Long Island Real Estate Group
|
Provides the real estate industry and allied trades a platform for
real estate-related charitable giving and networking
|
|
Long Island Commercial Network
|
Commercial Division of the Long Island Board of Realtors
|
|
Commercial Industrial Brokers Society of Long Island
|
Where Nassau and Suffolk commercial dealmakers meet and build
relationships
|
|
Building Owners’ and Managers’ Association
|
The leading advocacy group for the commercial real estate
industry
|
Go to the website, look up when a meeting is happening, drive to the meeting, introduce yourself around the room and you are half way there. You will gain mentors and friends that can help you along the way.
Also, keep your eyes open for this year's Long Island Commercial Real Estate Convention and come experience the leading service providers to the industry and take a seminar or two to sharpen your skills.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
A few posts back we discussed the technique of government utilizing its Eminent Domain power to force mortgage restructuring by taking mortgages at their current fair market value (not face value) and thrn having investors push money into government in order to modify the terms of the borrower's payments.
Thereafter, the Real Property Committee to the Suffolk Bar Association discussed this topic at our monthly meeting and addressed the issue of if Eminent Domain could force the taking at the depressed value or if instead, the taking should be had at the pre-depressed value as Eminent Domain takings had occurred during the Great Depression - our most similar reference in case law. To be clear, there are Eminent Domain cases that dispute the value at which property should be taken during a depressed market and it is unclear if, in NY, Eminent Domain could even be utilized to take mortgages at their current market value instead of their pre-depressed value.
Well our Congress now has a bill, HR 5397, Defending American Taxpayers from Abusive Government Taking Act of 2012, which basically prohibits Federal Agencies from partaking in such restructuring through Eminent Domain. So even if local government did utilize Eminent Domain, if this bill passes, many many mortgages would be off limits.
Your author doubts the bill will pass because there has been so much push back on the use of Eminent Domain in the first place throughout our Country, the issue of valuation in the second place within NY and other States, and the history of not much really getting done in Congress these days.
Regardless, to view & track the bill, as it is intellectually interesting, click here.
Thereafter, the Real Property Committee to the Suffolk Bar Association discussed this topic at our monthly meeting and addressed the issue of if Eminent Domain could force the taking at the depressed value or if instead, the taking should be had at the pre-depressed value as Eminent Domain takings had occurred during the Great Depression - our most similar reference in case law. To be clear, there are Eminent Domain cases that dispute the value at which property should be taken during a depressed market and it is unclear if, in NY, Eminent Domain could even be utilized to take mortgages at their current market value instead of their pre-depressed value.
Well our Congress now has a bill, HR 5397, Defending American Taxpayers from Abusive Government Taking Act of 2012, which basically prohibits Federal Agencies from partaking in such restructuring through Eminent Domain. So even if local government did utilize Eminent Domain, if this bill passes, many many mortgages would be off limits.
Your author doubts the bill will pass because there has been so much push back on the use of Eminent Domain in the first place throughout our Country, the issue of valuation in the second place within NY and other States, and the history of not much really getting done in Congress these days.
Regardless, to view & track the bill, as it is intellectually interesting, click here.