Tag Archives: injury

Banks v. Cities

Posted on by

The Supreme Court issued a decision in Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, 581 U.S. __ (2017). The decision was a mixed result for the parties.  On the one hand, the Court ruled that a municipality could sue financial institutions for violations of the Fair Housing Act arising from predatory lending. Miami alleged that the banks’ predatory lending led to a disproportionate increase in foreclosures and vacancies which decreased property tax revenues and increased the demand for municipal services. On the other hand, the Court held that Miami had not shown that the banks’ actions were directly related to injuries asserted by Miami. As a result, the Court remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether that in fact was the case. This case could have big consequences for how lenders and others and other big players in the housing industry develop their business plans.

For the purposes of this post, I want to focus on the banks’ activities of the banks that Miami alleged they engaged in during the early 2000s. It is important to remember the kinds of problems that communities faced before the financial crisis and before the Dodd-Frank Act authorized the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As President Trump and Chairman Hensarling (R-TX) of the House Financial Services Committee continue their assault on consumer protection regulation, we should understand the Wild West environment that preceded our current regulatory environment. Miami’s complaints charge that

the Banks discriminatorily imposed more onerous, and indeed “predatory,” conditions on loans made to minority borrowers than to similarly situated nonminority borrowers. Those “predatory” practices included, among others, excessively high interest rates, unjustified fees, teaser low-rate loans that overstated refinancing opportunities, large prepayment penalties, and—when default loomed—unjustified refusals to refinance or modify the loans. Due to the discriminatory nature of the Banks’ practices, default and foreclosure rates among minority borrowers were higher than among otherwise similar white borrowers and were concentrated in minority neighborhoods. Higher foreclosure rates lowered property values and diminished property-tax revenue. Higher foreclosure rates—especially when accompanied by vacancies—also increased demand for municipal services, such as police, fire, and building and code enforcement services, all needed “to remedy blight and unsafe and dangerous conditions” that the foreclosures and vacancies generate. The complaints describe statistical analyses that trace the City’s financial losses to the Banks’ discriminatory practices. (3-4, citations omitted)

Excessively high interest rates, unjustified fees, teaser interest rates and large prepayment penalties were all hallmarks of the subprime mortgage market in the early 2000s. The Supreme Court has ruled that such activities may arise to violations of the Fair Housing Act when they are targeted at minority communities.

Dodd-Frank has barred many such loan terms from a large swath of the mortgage market through its Qualified Mortgage and Ability-to-Repay rules. Trump and Hensarling want to bring those loan terms back to the mortgage market in the name of lifting regulatory burdens from financial institutions.

What’s worse, the  burden of regulation on the banks or the burden of predatory lending on the borrowers? I’d go with the latter.

Party at Your Place?

Posted on by

photo by Devin Ewart

Realtor.com quoted me in Moved Out? Watch Out, Teens May Be Partying in Your Old Home. It opens,

Teenagers are always on the lookout for a house party—and there’s nothing better than a venue where it’s all but guaranteed that nobody’s parents will barge in and disrupt all their risky business: vacant homes!

That’s right, if you’ve moved out and planted a “for sale” sign on your lawn—or are waiting to move into a place under construction—it’s a sitting duck for young revelers to … revel in.

The latest victim of this fast-growing trend: a newly built home in El Dorado Hills, CA, where nearly 200 kids broke in and had a bacchanal before they were busted by the cops. According to the Sacramento Bee, most of the partygoers scattered to safety, but 14 were detained and cited for trespassing.

Sadly, by the time law enforcement arrived, the house had suffered enough damage to qualify as a felony. Cops noted numerous holes in walls, busted electronics, and other property devastation in the house (estimated to be worth around $500,000).

And this is hardly an isolated incident: Last month, a teen in nearby Ceres, CA, pulled up a “for sale” sign from the yard of an unoccupied house, then spread the word on social media to come on down—BYOB and BYOW (bring your own weed)—charging $10 a head for the 100 or so who showed up. The noise prompted neighbors to eventually call the cops, who suspect the “host” has made a habit of organizing fetes in abandoned homes.

All in all, such stories can haunt the dreams of homeowners who’ve moved out or are about to move in: Are hooligans holding beer pong tournaments in your abandoned (or soon to be occupied) living room every Saturday night? And if they do crack your granite countertops, who’s responsible for the damage?

The answer depends on your homeowner insurance, which rarely covers policyowners who aren’t living on the premises.

“Many homeowner policies won’t cover a home if it’s vacant,” warns David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. Funny right? But here’s the punch line: “Homeowners should also be concerned about injuries suffered by the teens. It is all too plausible that you will face a lawsuit if one of them gets hurt while partying at the house. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the teens had trespassed.”

In other words, if some drunk punk stumbles and falls off your balcony and lands on his noggin, it might be all on you.

Yet there are things you can do to head this problem off at the pass.

“Some insurance companies offer endorsements to your existing policy or altogether new insurance policies that cover vacant homes,” points out Reiss. “Some even offer special coverage for vandalism damages. It’s worth looking into them if your home will be vacant, even for a relatively short time.”

Tennessee Court Rejected MERS’ Argument that Sale of Property Should be Invalidated

Posted on by

The court in deciding Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Ditto, 2014 Tenn. App. (Tenn. Ct. App., 2014) affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

This appeal involved the purchase of property at a tax sale. MERS filed suit against purchaser to invalidate his purchase of property because it had not received notice of the sale even though it was listed as a beneficiary or nominee on the deed of trust.

Purchaser claimed that MERS was not entitled to notice because MERS did not have an interest in the property. Purchaser also alleged that MERS failed to properly commence its lawsuit because it did not remit the proper funds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-2504(c).

The trial court refused to set aside the tax sale, holding that the applicable notice requirements were met and that the purchaser was the holder of legal title to the property. MERS appealed the lower court’s decision, however this court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Since appellant was never given an independent interest in the property, and it did not suffer an injury by the sale of the property at issue, and the only injury suffered by appellant related to the future effect the case could have on its business model, which was not a distinct and palpable injury capable of being redressed by the court, the trial court’s grant of the purchaser’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly granted as appellant did not have standing to file suit to set aside the tax sale of the property for lack of notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2502(c) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court found that the failure to tender the appropriate funds when filing the petition to set aside the sale under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(c) was not a prerequisite for relief.