Wednesday, November 07, 2012

New Short Sale Rules - Treasury issues Supplemental Directive 12-07

Some of the highlights of the Directive are as follows:


  • Use of certain HAFA documents will now be optional rather than mandatory, so long as the servicer communicates essential HAFA terms to the borrower in some written form.
  • Borrowers who request HAFA consideration and are ninety (90) days or more delinquent and have a FICO score that is less than 620, will be deemed to have a “pre-determined” hardship. Borrowers with a pre-determined hardship must execute a Hardship Affidavit prior to closing of the HAFA transaction; however, servicers will not be required to further validate the hardship.
  • Treasury will now require both the seller (borrower) and purchaser in a HAFA short sale transaction to execute a new HAFA affidavit prior to closing that certifies, among other attestations, that the sale represents an arms-length transaction and that no money is being given or received that is not reflected on the HUD 1 Settlement Statement. 
  • The time frame for servicers to make a decision on a borrower’s request for HAFA has generally been shortened to 30 calendar days. 
  • Treasury is increasing the incentive it will provide for permitting gross proceeds to be used to pay subordinate mortgage liens.
  • The current prohibition against resale of a property for 90 calendar days following a HAFA closing is being changed to prohibit any resale within 30 calendar days and prohibiting a resale for more 120% of the HAFA short sale price between 31 and 90 calendar days of the HAFA closing.


Also, notate that these new rules are effective on 2/1/13, not immediately.

To read the Supplemental Directive in its entirety, click here.

Surviving the rule change is the following:

A statement that if the borrower has a real estate license, he or she cannot earn a commission selling his or her own property and may not have any agreement to receive all or a portion of the commission after closing;


Real Estate Agents - this does not mean to try to creatively earn a commission on your own short sale. You will likely face charges of perjury &/or fraud. Its just not worth it. Instead, simply hire a friend whom you respect at your company to represent you in your short sale.

I just want to make a point of the fact that HAFA offers a proactive short sale. Being proactive with obtaining lender approval is the ONLY sensible way to seek out a short sale these days. Push your clients, attorneys and friends to work under the HAFA program. If you do, you will agree that HAFA is the way to go.

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

Hey real estate agents, Business Insider says you will find love!

Just a fun article I found at Business Insider, take a read by clicking here.

Although the article has no methodological basis for its prediction, its a good thought that real estate agents have such good fortune.

Remember to vote on this Election Day.

Saturday, November 03, 2012

Condo destroyed in hurricane & evacuated, do you have to pay your common charges?

Yes, unlike a cooperative apartment, where the warranty of habitability applies based upon the unit's characteristic of being a leasehold interest, a condominium's unit is owned in fee, as an owner of the land, structures and facilities. Therefore, a condominium owner must pay their common charges and assessments regardless of the hurricane rendering the unit unsafe for occupancy.

Therefore, condominium owners legally have to pay common-charges while cooperative owners don't in the face of Sandy. Nonetheless, when cooperative owners don't pay, they are likely giving the kiss of death to their building, which will likely end up in foreclosure when it doesn't have money to pay its mortgage. So, its suggested that ethically, albeit not legally required, cooperative shareholders should pay and hope that their homes are rebuilt through their building having an adequate insurance policy.

Before paying or not paying your maintenance or common charges, both condominium and cooperative residents should first consult with an attorney and review all applicable legal papers for your building.   

Friday, November 02, 2012

Attorneys and Real Estate Agents: Can they share office space?

During our recent continuing legal education course, Real Estate Business Ethics, held on October 24, 2012, I was asked by an attorney/student whether they could ethically share office space with a real estate brokerage office.

The answer is yes according to the New York County Lawyers' Association Committee on Professional Ethics in Opinion Number 733.

Although the answer is yes, the Committee cautioned as follows in rendering its Opinion: "Joint office sharing arrangements with non-Designated Professionals, while historically permitted, should be entered or continued only when precautions such as sub-dividing space and separating communications are undertaken, and these precautions will be particularly important whenever reciprocal referrals are also contemplated". 

The committee also offered the following suggestions: "If there is a common reception area, the signage and office nomenclature must not create the impression to the public that the lawyer and non-lawyer have a professional relationship. If there is one receptionist the same proscription applies. Existing space can be subdivided such that access to file rooms and computers containing confidential files is restricted."

Lastly, it must be notated that the Opinion is not binding on the Courts in enforcing the ethical rules and furthermore, the opinion referenced to the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility, which was replaced by the New York Rules of Professional Conduct on April 1, 2009 and therefore is not dispositive. Nonetheless, it appears that similar rules exist under the new Rules of Professional Conduct and that the Opinion's guidance remains applicable. The practitioner is advised to seek out a new opinion from their local Ethics Committee, pursuant to the new rules, before acting.

Co-op destroyed in hurricane & evacuated, do you have to pay your maintenance?

No said the Appellate Court (1st Dept.) in Granirer v. Bakery, Inc.

In its decision, the Court said that there is an "abatement of their maintenance until the apartment is restored to a habitable condition". Further, the Court stated that there should be a 100% abatement of maintenance, which includes "their contribution to the cooperative's tax and mortgage obligations".

The Appellate Court quoted its prior decision in Suarez v. Rivercross Tenants' Corp for the proposition that "A proprietary lessee is entitled to the statutory protection [of the warranty of habitability] as well as the noninvesting, ordinary tenant".

The Warranty of Habitability is a statutory right embodied in Real Property Law section 235-b that is required in every lease in New York. It provides that the property shall be "fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety".

So, is an act of god, such as a hurricane, an exception to the Warranty of Habitability? No, said the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County, when faced with this question in Spatz v. Axelrod Management Co., Inc.

Nonetheless, it must be notated that a Co-op shareholder's (unit owner's) refusal to pay their maintenance will likely result in the Co-op becoming insolvent and eventually being foreclosed upon and the shareholder's proprietary lease thereby being rendered void. So, in the end, shareholders refusal to pay maintenance based upon a breach of the proprietary lease's implied Warranty of Habitability is actually attacking them-self.

Its important for a shareholder who is considering not paying their maintenance to first review their proprietary lease and also consult with an attorney before acting and refusing to pay.