Politics - Eminent Domain to address Foreclosures

First, San Bernardino County, California, sought to seize upside-down mortgages and restructure them with more favorable terms to borrowers utilizing the government's compulsory sale powers by way of Eminent Domain.

Next, the idea was floated in Chicago.

Now, there is talk about its utilization in New York.

But, what are all of these politicians actually talking about?

As the advocates would put it, private investors will provide a municipality with the requisite funds to seize the underwater properties at market value, discounted from the loan amount as the properties are upside-down, and than purchase the restructured loans back from the government. Yet, there are many secondary effects as the introduction of this new approach to mortgage modifications adjusts the risks inherent in making loans and will likely change future loan terms for all.

Traditionally, Eminent Domain is utilized by municipalities for roads, schools and to facilitate up-zoning efforts in redeveloping districts. The concept being floated is to utilize Eminent Domain instead to force mortgagees to sell their notes and mortgages to the government for less than what is owed and to allow the government to flip the loan, at market value for the real estate, not based upon the agreed upon terms between mortgagor / mortgagee, to a new investor who will provide better terms to the borrower/mortgagor.

Can this be done in New York?

Looking at the applicable New York Statute, which is the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, Section 103 defines Real Property as follows: includes all land and improvements, lands under water, waterfront property, the water of any lake, pond or stream, all easements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, and every estate, interest and right, legal or equitable, in lands or water, and right, interest, privilege, easement and franchise relating to the same, including terms for years and liens by way of mortgage or otherwise.

As can be seen, a lien / mortgage is included. So, technically it appears on first glance that this is possible.

If it is, how much must the government pay for these underwater loans?
According to In re Public Park in City of New York, the Appellate Division held that the amount should be determined as follows:
If the portion of the land taken which is subject to the ... mortgage has a value in excess of the amount of the mortgage, then his interest is measured by the face of his mortgage and interest. If the value of the land is less than the face of the mortgage, then his interest is the value of the land, less, of course, a proper apportionment of taxes and assessments.

So there you have it, its the value of the land (at the time of the Eminent Domain) minus taxes and assessments.

Yet, interestingly, the statutory purpose for Eminent Domain in New York contains a wrinkle, which states, in pertinent part, as follows: to give due regard to the need to acquire property for public use as well as the legitimate interests of private property owners, local communities and the quality of the environment, and to that end to promote and facilitate recognition and careful consideration of those interests; 

So the question becomes, is this proposed utilization of Eminent Domain a "public use" at all or is it instead, a public purpose, which is not written as the statutory purpose for Eminent Domain?
You see the public isn't using the land at all. Instead, the public is trying to fulfill the purpose of helping homeowners in distress. Therefore, the utilization of Eminent Domain to rescue underwater homeowners in New York state appears questionable at best.

Comment on Federal Regulations on Servicing of Mortgage Loans

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is asking for your help in reviewing proposals at Regulation Room and reacting to them concerning regulating the mortgage industry. Click here to help make a difference in how mortgages are serviced into the future.

Regulation Room is a place where people talk to people talking to government. Each issue has its own summary for reading, discussing and commenting to the agencies that make the regulations.

Don't complain about the future of your industry, shape it.

Be careful when adding your spouse to a deed in only your name

Gifting your spouse a half interest in your separate real estate creates a presumption that the property is marital and subject to equitable distribution, so says the Third Judicial Department in Campfield v. Campfield, which can be read by clicking here. 

More strikingly is the fact that the Court refused to Order a credit to the original owner spouse for the value of her contribution of separate property to the acquisition of a marital asset. This is the traditional approach that most matrimonial attorneys are familiar with.

The Third Department distinguished the scenario of inheriting money and purchasing marital property where a credit would be given from the situation before it when a party already owned property and than added a spouse's name to the property. 

The Third Department controls from the Canadian border in the north to the lower Catskills in the south and from the Vermont and Massachusetts borders in the east to the Finger Lakes in the west.  The Third Department includes just over half of New York's land area and contains about one seventh of the State's population.

Making Home Affordable - New Handbook Available - Version 4.0

To access the new Handbook for MHA, inclusive of HAMP and HAFA, click here. While reviewing the Handbook you should be aware of the case of Flagstar Bank v. Walker wherein the Court held that the statutory good faith standard for a CPLR 3408 Foreclosure Settlement Conference is compliance with the Handbook. To review the case, click here.

This Handbook is the rules for banks / servicers to modify mortgages, so pay careful attention to detail and make sure that they comply.

Architectural Work is not only protected in copyright by the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act

In an interesting appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, captioned as Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC, Prudential Connecticut Realty, & Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, LLC, the Court held that the Copyright Act's protection of 'pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works' also protects architectural works from infringement. Therefore, graphical renditions of architectural work, before they are made into final construction drawings, which  have sufficient detail to enable constructions of homes based upon them, also contain protected expression.

The pictures at issue in this case were front elevation drawings showing the appearance of the front of the houses surrounded by lawn, bushes, and trees.

This decision is huge for the architectural industry as it greatly expands our understanding of protected works for architects. Moreover, the decision highlights the risks that real estate companies face by promoting protected works on their sites without express permission. All brokerage houses should carefully perform due diligence on the sketches of buildings that they post on their websites before approving such a posting.

To read a copy of the decision, click here.