The more I look at this foreclosure fraud settlement report, and the reliance on short sales for the allegedly positive results, the angrier I get.
Let’s first understand what the numbers refer to when the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight lists $8.67 billion in short sales. That number does not refer to the sale price of the home, but the difference between the sale price and the amount owed on the mortgage. This unpaid principal balance is then forgiven by the bank.
According to the OMSO, 74,614 borrowers took advantage of a short sale that qualified under the settlement, with an average of around $116,200 per borrower. This includes first and second lien remaining balances, on both short sales or “deeds-in-lieu,” where the borrower deeds the residents to the servicer or investor instead of a foreclosure (basically the same thing, only the “buyer” is the servicer or investor, instead of an outside third party).
This acts a lot like a waiver of a deficiency judgment. In the circumstance of a deficiency judgment, the bank can get a court ruling to go after a foreclosure victim post-foreclosure to get them to cough up the balance between what they ended up getting on a foreclosure sale and the amount owed on the mortgage. Banks rarely do this, for the simple reason that foreclosure victims typically don’t have a big pot of money to give them. It’s like drawing blood from a stone. So banks often waive deficiency judgments.
We can see the same dynamic here, the difference being that the bank is waiving the deficiency judgment, or in other words forgiving the balance of the mortgage after the sale, without having the home go into foreclosure. This makes sense for the bank, since sale prices on a short sale are typically better than a sale price on a foreclosed property, or REO (real estate owned).
But here’s the key point: 12 states are “non-recourse states.” In these states, the bank is prohibited from going after a foreclosure victim for the balance of the mortgage post-foreclosure sale. The non-recourse states include large ones hit particularly hard by the foreclosure crisis, like California and Arizona. (The others are Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington).
So how can the bank get credit for waiving a deficiency judgment, or doing effectively the same thing through a short sale, in a non-recourse state? There’s no prohibition against it. But what we’re saying in that instance is that banks are given credit for paying a “penalty” by not collecting the balance of a mortgage after the sale, something they are PROHIBITED BY THE STATE FROM DOING.
And guess what? The OMSO report breaks this down by state. So I can see that the five big banks participating in the settlement got credit for $522 million in short sales in Arizona and a whopping $3.9 BILLION in California. Those two alone equal over half of the total short sales in the report. If you total up all the non-recourse states (I’ve put their raw totals at the end of this piece), you get over $5 billion in short sales coming from states that bar banks from pursuing a deficiency judgment.
This is a handout to the banks. Some part of this $5 billion will satisfy their punishment in the settlement (not all of it; there are portions of a dollar in the formula based on where the loan was held in portfolio or was a securitized loan held by an investor). And it represents $5 billion these banks could never collect, $5 billion they’re barred by collecting by law. Banks should never have been allowed to count deficiency judgment waivers or short sale forgiveness in non-recourse states. But they are, and they’re doing it in big numbers.
APPENDIX: Here are the short sale totals for the 12 non-recourse states, from the report of the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight:
Alaska: $731,599
Arizona: $522,142,154
California: $3,900,15,281
Connecticut: $48,583,118
Idaho: $39,028,012
Minnesota: $68,856,947
North Carolina: $58,909,048
North Dakota: $448,677
Oregon: $86,352,072
Texas: $49,255,741
Utah: $64,976,864
Washington: $189,030,612




17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I understand most of this, but aren’t the banks given credit for what they would do anyway? I don’t see how this settlement changes their behavior at all. How is this a settlement?
Yes, this is more back door bailouts for our zombie banks. I am not surprised. We all know the settlement was a sham and now I just look for how the screwing of borrowers is evolving. The only ‘hope’ I had was that Obama wanted to get people like me back on his good side just ahead of the election. Sixty nine days to go and this is what we get….. Mr. President, this will be a lasting stain on your legacy as president. The suicides, murder suicides, divorces, family separations, homelessness, the economic damages to individuals, the mental and emotional pain caused by fraudclosure ON YOUR WATCH will be a hallmark of disgrace that will follow you for the rest of American history for centuries to come. This could have been your last chance to rectify your massive blindside to the failing economy. You will be remembered as a failure forever.
Assuming all homeowners that can be screwed get screwed where will this end up in conjunction with the planned austerity to be imposed on the 99%. This rape of the fake housing bubble has a finite end to it after the next 2 or 3 million foreclosures are completed. I see a greater depression than the Great Depression. Even to rent you need to be a wage earner. Anecdotally I’m seeing more people moving in with relatives than buying their own homes.
After reading Neil Barofsky’s book “Bailout”, I think that it’s indisputable that the bankers own the Obama administration–far more so than they own congress.
Therefore it makes perfect sense that any deal Obama works out with banks would end up shafting the American people to the benefit of rich bankers.
The majority of our elected leaders are sociopaths, and as such are immune to shame and regret. They just don’t care about the 99% except for their potential for exploitation.
eh?
Could you not move the comma in your mind and give a guy a break. Sheesh
>>
so the banks were allowed by our intrepid law enforcers to get credit toward paying the much touted historic ‘robo-signing settlement’ fines for short sale deficiencies that those same banks are barred from being able to collect as deficiency judgments? i.e. money for nothing??
makes me wonder…I know that Obama had the insurance industry write the so-called ‘health care’ law .. did Obama and his team of hard-core enforcers allow the banks to write the robo-signing settlement?
if they didn’t write it they approved it.
Could, but
$522,142,154 AZ
$390,015,281 CA
doesn’t look right, either.
CNN just posted “Banks give $10.6 billion in relief under mortgage settlement” less than an hour ago. It doesn’t even mention “non-recourse states” and ends with a Shaun Donovan statement:
More half-truths.
Once upon a time, all states were “non-recourse” states when it came to residential mortgages.
And that was another thing that prevented banks from granting mortgages that were too large to be satisfied from the proceeds of selling the property at auction.
Gee, I wonder who lobbied states for the ability to seek deficiency judgments? And I wonder why state legislatures granted that ability?
Can you name an administration or a Congress since 1980 that has not been owned by banks and other large businesses?
Maybe it has always been that way, but since the exponential growth of lobbying and use of expensive TV time in political campaigns, there is barely a difference now between outright bribery and “lobbying.”
I can almost envision a scenario where the closed-door discussions of policies that are ostensibly supposed to benefit the homeowners in these cases starts out with someone at the White House “So, what does this do to give money to our friends at the banks?” Am I just too cynical?
Thanks for digging further into this David. That’s a cute trick they’re playing to show how magnanimous the banks are being.
The only solution that I have ever seen to this disaster is creating a secondary market for the difference between the purchase price of the home and the current value of the home. This solution also includes crushing down all ARMs to the lowest current rate for refinance. In the end nothing will be done besides draining a bunch of tax dollars to criminal banks and the market driving many people from their homes. (As a note: every person I know who is in trouble right now has a home they bought for over 400k borrowed against it and thought they were going to make a killing on it)
i missed a number