LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Debt-to-Income ratios get tougher by FANNIE MAE

At the beginning of our recent class, entitled Mortgage Mania at Bethpage FCU, I was asked a question, which was more like a statement, inquiring if a lower Loan to Value (L/T) ratio (more money down) was a key predictor of default risk.

IN ENGLISH - If a borrower puts down more money (has more equity) shouldn't that imply they won't default? I took issue with this statement by saying that I believe that back-end Debt to Income (DTI) ratio mattered a hell of a lot more. My rationale was that even if you had a lot of skin in the game, your inability to make your mortgage payments trumped your desire to make your mortgage payments. The student took issue with my sentiment throughout the class thereafter by defending his position.

It’s true that both L/T ratio and DTI ratio are relevant and evaluated by lenders in making a loan. Yet, my message was that DTI ratio is much more important in making the determination to provide funding. 

It turns out that FANNIE MAE agrees. They just changed, effective December 13, 2010, their requirements with respect to each of the above discussed ratios. Specifically, maximum DTI ratios for a conventional mortgage change from 55% to 45% under the new guidelines. Additionally, borrowers can now utilize gifts and grants to satisfy their minimum down payment, which impacts the L/T ratio. To read a great New York Times article that summarizes these changes, click here. Remember, that FANNIE MAE sets the standards for the rest of the industry because they are the largest secondary market purchaser, so this will likely become the standard.

The takeaway for students reading this blog is that a lender cares more about your ability to pay (how much money you have left at the end of the month after paying your other bills) as opposed to your desire to pay (how much equity you have to lose if you don't pay).

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Spinner overturned - enforcement of the CPLR 3408 Foreclosure Settlement Conferences' good faith requirement held unauthorized

Appellate Division, Second Department, held in an unsigned ruling that the "severe sanction…was not authorized by any statute or rule…nor was the plaintiff given fair warning that such a sanction was even under consideration." "The reasoning of the Supreme Court that its equitable powers included the authority to cancel the mortgage and note was
erroneous, since there was no acceptable basis for relieving the homeowner of her contractual obligation to the bank," - IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 17926/05.

Open Letter from the Bar to the Courts

Click here to read a letter from the chair of the Real Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association to Mr. Paul Lawis of the New York State Office of Court Administration. This letter called for changes to the Affirmation Requirement in foreclosures. As can be seen from my previous post, many of the calls from the chair of the section went unanswered. More importantly, I disagree with many of the chair's statements, as do many other attorneys who question how such a letter could be written without a vote. Specifically, the chair discusses how this requirement violates the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality. Yet, if he would read the ethics rules for attorneys, click here to read, he would learn that not perpetrating a fraud on the court trumps that rule.

Foreclosure attorney affirmation modified

As I always advise to real estate experts, foreclosure defense requires being on top of the issues (they change all of the time). In less than a month after announcing an Affirmation requirement for foreclosure attorneys to hopefully weed out robosigners, the court system has already changed the affirmation requirement on November 17. The new affirmation requirement can be found by clicking here.