The U.S. Treasury Department has issued Supplemental Directive 15-06 “Making Home Affordable Program – Streamlined Modification Process”.

This new program is akin to the Streamlined Modifications already offered on GSE Loans. GSE or “Government-sponsored enterprise”, are privately held corporations for a public purpose such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These GSEs have had in place streamline modifications that Loan Servicers are mandated to offer to eligible borrowers. One draw-back in any type of modification with a GSE Loan is the fact that principal reduction is not offered.

This new directive is for Non-GSE Loans and the Loan Servicers and Lenders such as Chase, Citibank, Carrington Mortgage, Nationstar Mortgage and so many others. The streamline modification provides a modification opportunity to delinquent borrowers of Non-GSE Loans without the need to submit any docs or for any income verification. In fact, once a Loan Servicer has designated its pool of eligible borrowers a Streamline HAMP Trial Period Plan Offer will be issued to the Borrower. The only thing for the Borrower to do is make the first payment to enter into the trial period. This will greatly improve the approval process for those Borrowers that are directly designated and free up resources for those borrowers that may not be eligible by lessening the modification approval time frame. The bonus is that in Non-GSE modifications, principal reduction can, and may be included in the modification.

Eligible Borrowers will only learn of this from their Loan Servicers directly by mail. Be sure to keep an eye on all mail received from your Loan Servicer to see if you are in luck. Regrettably, if a Borrower does not fit within the specific eligibility pool they will be out of luck for streamline modifications.

Both buyers and sellers need to know what side a real estate salesperson is on in a transaction and also what duties they can expect from their real estate brokerage and salesperson while being represented.

Full article in Behind The Hedges, written by Andrew Lieb, Esq. here. 

Learn about real estate brokers' duty to disclose to those that they do not represent. Recent case creates more questions than it answers.

Full article in The Suffolk Lawyer, written by Andrew Lieb, Esq. here. 

Course:  Deal Killers - Don't Let Your Deal Die

Instructor: Andrew Lieb, Esq.

Date: July 29th, 2015 at 353 West 46th Street (between 8th and 9th avenue)

Course Summary: You get the client, spend months looking for the perfect deal, find it, negotiate it and send it to an attorney to close it. Then, what? It dies. Have you ever wondered if you could do anything differently to have more of your deals close? Learn some of the main reasons that deals die like issues with the Sales Agreement, Title, Escrow Deposit, Closing Date, Financing / Contingencies and the Seller’s Concession. Next, learn how to proactively save your deals and earn a commission. Knowledge is commission.

CE Credits: 3

To Register: Login to Your Lieb School Account and Click "Enroll" or "Join Waiting List" 

Today, in the case Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held 5-4 (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor & Kagan for the majority) that disparate-impact is a cognizable cause of action under the the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In short, a plaintiff can now point to statistical evidence of discrimination in lieu of the more difficult standard of proving that the defendant had actual discriminatory intent.

In the legal world, whether under the FHA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,  there are two types of discrimination: disparate-treatment, and disparate-impact. Disparate-treatment typically is discriminatory on its face. For instance, when a landlord refuses to rent to women. The landlord has discriminated against a protected class and is liable under the FHA. Disparate-impact is neutral on its face, but results in statistical discrimination of a protected class. For instance, when a landlord refuses to rent to people with long hair. The landlord's policy does not on its face discriminate against a protected class, but the effect is disproportionate discrimination against women. Under the theory of disparate-impact discrimination, the landlord is discriminating against a protected class, even though that may not be his intention, and is liable under the FHA.

In the Texas Department of Housing and Communities Affairs case, the plaintiff alleged that the criteria set by the Texas Department of Housing and Communities Affairs for the distribution of tax credits intended to assist development of low income housing resulted in discrimination on the basis of race. The criteria, which was racially neutral on its face because it considered  economic factors almost exclusively, had the statistical result of higher approval rates for communities with higher proportions of African-Americans. The plaintiff alleged that the criteria resulted in the Texas Department of Housing and Communities Affairs discriminating against Caucasians under the theory of disparate-impact.

The Supreme Court, recognizing the broad expansion of liability under the disparate-impact theory, carefully established the burden a plaintiff must meet to make a prima facie showing of discrimination. That is, statistical discrimination of a protect class alone will not result in liability. First, the plaintiff must show that the action or policy results in statistical discrimination against a protected class. Second, the plaintiff must show that there is a specific policy held or perpetrated by the defendant that is causing the disparate-impact discrimination. Third, the plaintiff must show that there is an alternative practice or policy that has less disparate impact while still serving the defendant's legitimate needs.

The consequences of this ruling will be far reaching as plaintiffs attempt to link facially neutral policies to disparate-impact discrimination against protected classes. In New York, for instance, disparate-impact greatly expands the potential liability for discrimination against the numerous protected classes in our State. While the FHA has seven (7) protected classes (Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex, Familial Status, and Handicap), New York State has eleven (11) protected classes (Race, Creed, Color, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, Military Status, Sex, Age, Disability, Marital Status, and Familial Status) and New York City has fourteen (14) protected classes (Race, Creed, Color, National Origin, Gender, Age, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Marital Status, Partnership Status, Alienage Status, Citizenship Status, Lawful Source of Income, and Children are, may be, or would be residing with such person). While New York City and New York State already recognized disparate-impact as a cognizable cause of action in certain circumstances prior to this most recent Supreme Court ruling, the recognition of disparate-impact under the FHA will likely cause expansion of disparate-impact theories in jurisdictions and statutes which do not specifically recognize disparate-impact as a cognizable cause of action.

The law of the land is clear - disparate-impact is just as damaging as disparate-treatment and violators cannot hide behind facially neutral policies.