Austin Real Estate Blog

In every business and industry there is a concern for deceitful behavior. Real Estate is not an exception to this, unfortunately. Should you encounter something that concerns you, the best place to start is the Federal Trade Commission site. The site can provide critical information that can protect you and help you steer clear of hidden snares used by unscrupulous real estate investors, or to simply clarify contract misnomers.

When focusing on the purchase of an investment property, there is no shame in nit-picking for clarity in every section of your contract. Typically this is a very large investment. Contracts tend to have terminology that we do not use on a daily basis. A slight misnomer in a contract can make a huge impact on whether or not you will be making a good investment or an expensive blunder. Make sure to contact your real estate agent or attorney to answer any questions and provide any options that may be available to you, before making any commitments.

Taking a logical pragmatic approach to making your investment is vital to making your investment a good one. There are common downfalls to resisting this pragmatic approach. The most common downfall is fixating on the “perfect property”. Once you put yourself in that position, you lose perspective on the fundamental issues that must be addressed. In addition, you may overlook or simply ignore problems or imperfections in the property or contract. It is essential for negotiations to stay focused.

Making an investment in the right property and making sure you understand the contract, can be tricky, but following a few worthy tips and consulting with a trusted real estate agency or attorney are highly recommended.

This message is to alert you to changes in the federal Truth-in-Lending Act regulations, which will have an impact to every mortgage provider.  It will require a fundamental change to how we finalize loan terms for the borrower prior to closing. Changes at the closing table could require the borrower to reschedule the closing date if a revised Truth-In-Lending (TIL) is needed.

The rules for the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act were finalized Friday, May 8^th, and it is applicable to all mortgage lenders (federally chartered or state licensed).  For applications taken as of July 30, 2009, new requirements about the delivery and the accuracy of disclosures will apply.  One of the new requirements is that the borrower must be provided with an accurate APR disclosure at least three business days prior to closing.

Remember the new rule with “3/7/3”

3 days after application – An initial Truth-In-Lending (TIL) statement must be provided no later than 3 business days after receipt of the loan application.  Our current process generates an auto-compliance package that complies with this requirement, so no changes are needed.

7 business days after initial application – Waiting period – the borrower is not permitted to close until at least seven business days have passed since the TIL was placed in the mail or provided to the borrower.

3 business days prior to closing – Waiting period – the borrower must receive an accurate APR on their TIL at least 3 business days prior to closing. If it was provided before that period of time, because the loan terms were locked in earlier in the process, no new TIL is required if there is no change to the APR or the change is less than 1/8th of a percent.

If the final loan terms cause the TIL / APR to be understated by more than 1/8th of a percent, a revised TIL with an accurate APR must be provided to the borrower so that they receive it at least three business days prior to closing. It must be in their hands at that time, and they may close on the 3rd business day after that day.

What this means to you? All Realtors and buyers need to be advised of these new timing requirements, which will limit rush closings and could even delay closings.

In light of the current epidemic of mortgage foreclosures, the Hope Now Alliance wants to help make sure home owners have the tools and resources to avoid the pain and embarrassment of losing their investments.

Originally developed to help those subprime mortgagees avoid foreclosure when faced with skyrocketing payments, Hope Now finds its mission changed to assist prime loan borrowers as well who find themselves 90 or more days behind in mortgage payments.

The Alliance is comprised of dozens of major lenders, including Bank of America, Citigroup, Countrywide, JP Morgan Chase and Co., Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo. Many aspects of the mortgage industry are represented – financial counselors, loan servicers, and the like – and Hope Now claims to have assisted about 870,000 home owners keep their properties in 2007.

Critics of the program are calling it “too little, too late”, claiming lenders should have been ready to act much sooner and with more urgency. But an underlying and somewhat sinister current to the whole debacle is the issue of fraud among lenders and borrowers alike. Director of research at the Lusk Center for Real Estate at the University of Southern California, Gary Painter, raised this specter, saying the industry needs to investigate questionable practices among mortgage brokers which he is convinced helped fuel the current real estate crisis.

Banks are more interested in helping their clients stay in their homes and continue mortgage payments rather than go through the expense of repossessing and reselling the property. Regardless of the criticism and un-investigated issues, the Hope Now Alliance is at least attempting to offer home owners in crisis the means of retaining ownership of their hard earned homes.

“Texas Tenth in Mortgage Fraud” from Dallas Business Journal

Texas ranked tenth in the nation for mortgage fraud last year, according to Dallas-based MortgageDaily.com.

The state had $98.2 million in fraud, up from $96 million in 2006. California and Ohio topped the list, with California alone totaling $1.6 billion in fraud.

MortgageDaily.com identified over $4 billion in mortgage fraud nationwide.

The real estate industry has long been susceptible to price inflation, fraud, and other unsavory practices. Making it illegal to coerce an appraiser would be a good thing, but I hope that most appraisers wouldn’t see that as a way out of talking and reviewing agent recommendations when there is an issue with an appraisal.

I’ve not had any problems with an appraiser doing that, but I’ve heard stories about appraisers not taking input. Lenders seem to be the culprit in most cases of coercion that I’ve heard of.

You can read the summary of the Federal Reserve Proposal below in the first quoted area.

Additionally, in the news recently, is an appraiser that is suing WaMu for breach of contract, unfair business practices, interference with her ability to earn a living, fraud, conspiracy and slander. The bank is accused of pulling business from an appraiser who refused to make the appraisals favorably to the bank. Man, o, man. That’s bad news for the bank. What do you think about inflated appraisal? Send us a comment and let us know.

Federal Reserve Proposal Addresses Appraisal Coercion
Excerpt from Appraisal Institute’s Appraiser News Online Vol. 9, No. 1, January 15, 2008

The Federal Reserve Board recently proposed prohibiting creditors and mortgage brokers from coercing real estate appraisers to misstate a home’s value on all mortgages. The announcement was part of the Fed’s December 18 proposed changes to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending), which would restrict certain practices and require certain mortgage disclosures to be provided earlier in the transaction.

…

In addition to prohibiting creditors and mortgage brokers from coercing appraisers, the Board also proposes to prohibit creditors from extending credit when creditors know or have reason to know, at or before loan consummation, that an appraiser has misstated a dwelling’s value. The regulation would apply to all consumer credit transactions secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling.

In its discussion on the topic, the Board said, “Pressuring an appraiser to overstate, or understate, the value of a consumer’s dwelling distorts the lending process and harms consumers… Inflated appraisals of homes concentrated in a neighborhood may affect other appraisals, since appraisers factor the value of comparable properties into their property valuation. For the same reason, understated appraisals may affect appraisals of neighboring properties. Thus, inflated or understated appraisals can harm consumers other than those who are party to the transaction with the inflated appraisal. Moreover, these consumers are not in a position to know of the practice or avoid it.”

The proposed regulation defines the term “appraiser” as a person who engages in the business of providing – or offering to provide – assessments of the value of dwellings.

The commentary to the proposed regulation gives examples of acts that would violate the regulation: implying to an appraiser that retention of the appraiser depends on the amount at which the appraiser values a consumer’s principal dwelling; failing to compensate an appraiser or to retain the appraiser in the future because the appraiser does not value a consumer’s principal dwelling at or above a certain amount; and conditioning an appraiser’s compensation on loan consummation.

The commentary also lists examples of acts that would not violate the regulation: requesting that an appraiser consider additional information for, provide additional information about, or correct factual errors in a valuation; obtaining multiple appraisals of a dwelling (provided that the creditor or mortgage broker selects appraisals based on reliability rather than on the value stated); withholding compensation from an appraiser for breach of contract or substandard performance of services or terminating a relationship for violation of legal or ethical standards; and taking action permitted or required by applicable federal or state statute, regulation, or agency guidance.

…

The Nation’s Housing

Appraiser’s Lawsuit Puts Lenders on Notice

By Kenneth R. Harney
Saturday, January 26, 2008; Page F01

Real estate appraisers have complained for years about demands from loan officers that they fudge and inflate numbers to allow mortgage deals to close.

Now a California appraiser has sued the country’s largest thrift institution, Washington Mutual Bank, charging that she was blacklisted for refusing to provide favorable appraised values despite declining market conditions.

The lawsuit, by Jennifer Wertz, comes just two months after the state of New York sued an appraisal management company, First American eAppraiseIT, for allegedly giving in to pressure from Washington Mutual to inflate property values for loan applications — contributing to mortgage-market losses. EAppraiseIT and LSI, a unit of Fidelity National Information Services, were also cited in Wertz’s suit as contractors to Washington Mutual.

Wertz said in her complaint that she began performing appraisals for Washington Mutual in 2001 and earned “in excess of $100,000 a year” from her work for the bank. But last May, according to the suit, a Washington Mutual manager upbraided her for describing local property values in an appraisal as “declining.” The manager “insisted that [Wertz] change her report to indicate ’stable’ conditions so that the loan could be approved.”

All the relevant data suggested otherwise, however, and Wertz refused. The manager then allegedly told Wertz that she would be banned from all further assignments from Washington Mutual if she did not cooperate. Wertz declined to do so — citing federal, state and professional rules requiring her to provide objective and accurate reports free of outside influence. According to the lawsuit, Wertz was then cut off from Washington Mutual business through the appraisal management companies.

Wertz’s lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court in Sacramento, charges breach of contract, unfair business practices, interference with her ability to earn a living, fraud, conspiracy and slander, among other alleged violations.

…

It amazes me that no matter how many people get caught doing these mortgage fraud schemes, people still do them. Why would you think that you could run 30 scams over a 9 year period and that no one would eventually catch up to you? I guess if you scammed for 5 years and then went to some place in Bosnia you could “get away” with it, but short of that you’re going to get caught. Anyway, take a look at some of the folks involved. The vast majority are from Austin and several are licensed agents or lenders. What a shame on the industry they are. I’m glad their gone. Know of any other good stories? Send them my way and I’m happy to post them.

This article is an excerpt from The Mortgage Fraud Blog about the case.

A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging sixteen individuals with conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering for their roles in a multi-million dollar mortgage fraud scheme. Those charged include:
Cornelius Robinson, 47, Austin, Texas, leader and organizer of the conspiracy;
Silvia Seelig, 45, Austin, during the conspiracy was a licensed real estate agent and an alleged straw buyer;
George H. Watson, 55, Austin, a licensed attorney specializing in real estate transactions. Watson served as the closing attorney on numerous real estate transactions associated described in the Indictment;
James Douglas Atwood, 51, Austin, Cornelius Robinson‘s uncle and an alleged straw buyer;
Michael Breon, 39, Austin, an associate of Cornelius Robinson and an alleged straw buyer. Breon, a licensed loan officer and mortgage broker, was employed by several different loan origination and mortgage companies during the conspiracy;
Sindu Sukumaran, 36, wife of Michael Breon and an alleged straw buyer;
Doris Ann Hill, 40, Austin, a personal banker employed at Wells Fargo Bank. For a fee, Hill allegedly agreed to provide a false verification of deposit to loan underwriters in relation to real estate transactions.
Julius Meyers Lofton, 45, Austin, licensed real estate agent and an alleged straw buyer;
Roy Rivers, age 52 of Austin, friend of Cornelius Robinson and James Atwood and an alleged straw buyer;
Danielle Guice Rosas, 40, Austin, an alleged straw buyer;
Stanley Ma, 27, Honolulu, Hawaii area and an alleged straw buyer;
Leonard Brown, 38, Houston, Texas, and an alleged straw buyer who also allegedly provided a false verification of employment in association with Onyx Consulting and defendant Ma;
Russell Snead, 43, Seattle, Washington area, an associate of Cornelius Robinson and an alleged straw buyer;
Marlon Nathan Torres, 45, Hutto, Texas, an associate of Cornelius Robinson;
Jeffrey Andre Wilkins, 46, Austin, a friend of Cornelius Robinson and an alleged straw buyer; and,
Leroy Williams, 46, Austin, an alleged straw buyer.

The austin mortgage fraud indictment alleges that from September 1999 to present, the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders, including federally insured financial institutions, with regard to loans acquired to purchase 25 properties in the Austin and San Antonio, Texas area. The scheme centered upon the use of real estate flips. That is, the defendants purchased property at one price and would immediately sell, or flip, the property to a straw buyer at a higher price. In doing so, the mortgage lenders were deceived as to the true nature of the transaction and the financial status of the straw buyer. The straw buyers did not make the subsequent monthly mortgage payments and all of the loans have gone into default. All of loans have been either foreclosed upon or are the subject of current foreclosure proceedings.

Each defendant faces up to 30 years in federal prison upon conviction of the fraud conspiracy charge; up to 20 years in federal prison upon conviction of the money laundering conspiracy charge. In addition to the conspiracy charges, the indictment contains several substantive charges including wife fraud, false statements and receipt of commission or gift for procuring loans.
It is important to note that an indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The properties involved include:

10920 Preston Trails, Austin;
3306 Pennsylvania, Austin;
4708 Heflin Lane, Austin;
5403 Pendleton, Austin;
3109 Val Drive, Austin;
1174 Graham, Austin;
5200 Meadow Field; San Antonio;
5205 Meadow Field; San Antonio;
5216 Meadow Field; San Antonio;
5221 Meadow Field; San Antonio;
5228 Meadow Field; San Antonio;
301 Lightsey, Austin;
5100 Woodmoor, Austin;
1207 Harvey, Austin;
3700 Govalle, Austin;
5011 Nixon, Austin;
3303 Hickory Creek Cove, Austin;
7412 Albert Lane, Austin;
3900 Pawnee Pass, Austin;
2507 Givens Avenue, Austin;
2904 Cherrywood, Austin;
10415 James Ryan Way, Austin;
3513 Josh Lane, Austin;
1709 Enfield, Austin;
601 Explorer, Lakeway;
12605 Lyndon, Austin;
27013 Masters Parkway, Spicewood;
4412 City Park Road, Austin;
1345 Upper ELgin River Road, Elgin;

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is being prosecuted for the government by Assistant United States Attorney Mark Lane.