Real Estate

HOA seeks to oust orphan from age-restricted neighborhood

Standard
HOA grandparents grandson

Image from KOLD.com (News 13), Tucson, Arizona

 

A fifteen year-old California lad lost both of his parents last year. Collin Claybaugh’s mother, Bonnie, died in the hospital from a long-term illness. And his father, Clay, took his own life two weeks later.

What do good able-bodied grandparents do in this situation besides grieve the loss of their children? They take in their grandson, of course. That’s what Randy and Melodie Passmore did. The Passmores are both in their 70’s and live on a small pension plus social security. They own their home in The Gardens at Willow Creek, a 55-plus community in Prescott, Arizona.

The age restriction apparently has a limited exception for residents who are 19 years of age and older. But a 15-year old boy is definitely not allowed by the rules.

The Passmores received a letter from the homeowners’ association advising them that Collin must move out. The letter said that the board must balance the interests of all parties involved, not just the Passmores. The HOA board said they are concerned that if they fail to enforce the age restriction, they could endanger the ability for the development to remain an age-restricted community.

The Passmores’ only alternative is to sell their home and move, which they believe will be difficult considering their age and financial position. They do not have funds to mount a legal battle.

My husband and I would love to downsize at this point in our lives, and we would be interested in living in a community where the exterior and grounds are maintained by someone else. But this story convinces me to stay clear of age-restricted communities.

How do you think this story would play out from a legal standpoint in South Carolina?

Recent HOA foreclosure case leads to new rule in Beaufort County

Standard

Master imposes rule based on Chief Justice Beatty’s concurring opinion

foreclosure notice

This blog recently discussed the remarkable homeowners’ association foreclosure case, Winrose Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Hale, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27934 (December 18, 2019.) You can read the earlier blog here.

The case focused on the inadequacy of the foreclosure sales price and the business model of a third party to leverage a nominal debt to secure an exorbitant return from homeowners who fear eviction. I believe the case will require HOA foreclosure attorneys to rethink their approach going forward.

In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Beatty said he would go a step further than the majority opinion and adopt the equity method of determining an adequate sales price for residential property in a foreclosure. The equity method compares the winning bid price to the equity in the property. The alternative debt method compares the total debt on the property to its fair market value.

The majority opinion stated that our courts have not established a bright-line rule for what percentage “shocks the conscience”, but a search of our South Carolina’s jurisprudence reveals that our courts have consistently held a price below ten percent definitely does. In this case, the debt method would have resulted in a ratio of 53.9 percent, while the equity method would have resulted in a ratio of 4.9%.

The new rule of the Beaufort County Master-in-Equity Marvin Dukes focuses on a totally separate issue in the case. The homeowners, who were in default, did not receive a notice of the date and time of the foreclosure sale. Judge Dukes’ office disseminated a message to foreclosure attorneys requiring new wording in foreclosure orders.

The new required wording entitled “Special Default Foreclosure Order and Sale Notice Service Instructions” reads as follows:

“That, in addition to all notices to the property owner(s) which are required by the  SCRCP or other law, in a case involving property owner’s SCRPC 55 default, or any other case or circumstances where property owner(s) would not ordinarily receive a copy of the Order of Foreclosure and/or Notice of Sale, the party seeking foreclosure (Foreclosing Party) shall, within 5 (five) days of the execution of this Order cause this Order and Notice of Sale (if available) to be served by US Mail upon said property owner(s).

An affidavit of such service shall be filed with the Clerk of Court expeditiously.

In cases where the Notice of Sale is executed later in time than the Order, service shall be accomplished separately, and shall be sent no later than 5 (five) days from receipt by the Foreclosing Party.”

I suspect additional guidance will be coming from our courts about whether the Winrose case will have broad application in foreclosure cases or be limited to its facts. I’m confident foreclosure attorneys feel they need more information.

Supreme Court to hear CFPB Constitutionality Challenge

Standard

Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau likely to be heard by mid-2020

CFPB building

The United States Supreme Court has chosen a case to decide the constitutionality of the CFPB. The case is Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (U.S. Supreme Court 19-7). The announcement was made on Friday, December 27. The allegation in question is that the structure of the agency grants too much power to its director, in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

Under the current structure, the director of the CFPB cannot be fired by the president absent “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The heads of other federal agencies may be removed at the pleasure of the president.

The order posted by the Court requested that both sides address the following question: “If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C §5491(c)(3) be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act?”

The United States House of Representatives’ motion to file an amicus curiae brief because the Department of Justice has chosen not to defend the constitutionality of the agency.

Concern about the structure of the agency has been voiced since its inception based on the fact that such huge power has been placed in the hands of one individual director. The argument continues that the CFPB has more power than any agency ever created by Congress. While most federal agencies are controlled by commissions or by a director who serves at the pleasure of the President, the CFPB’s sole director is removable only for cause. Also, since all of the funding of the agency is not controlled by Congress, there is little legislative oversight.

In previous hearings, when the CFPB has been asked what the appropriate remedy should be if the structure of the agency is held to be unconstitutional, the CFPB has maintained that formative statute would have to be amended to allow the President to remove the director with or without cause.  Some have suggested that all of the actions of the CFPB might be suspect if its structure is held unconstitutional. Others have suggested that agency should be headed by a multi-person, bi-partisan commission rather than a single director for greater transparency and accountability.

If a decision in the case is announced in mid-2020, the presidential election could be affected since Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s role in creating the agency is a central pillar of her presidential bid.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has made clear in a previous dissent that he believes the structure of the agency is unconstitutional.

Eighth Circuit Court ruling makes loans disappear

Standard

The decision could make significant changes in the secondary market

foreclosure

I refer you to this article from Bloomberg that led me to read the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case decided last month, CityMortgage, Inc. v. Equity Bank, N.A.*.

In South Carolina and most other states, the bank has the power to pursue the borrower personally if it can’t sell the property that is subject to a mortgage for the full amount of the loan after a foreclosure. There are a handful of “non-recourse” states where it is not possible to pursue the borrower personally. But this case was decided under Missouri law, and Missouri is not one of those unusual states.

The article makes a point that’s news to me: non-recourse mortgages are standard in most countries other than the United States.

The case involved a repurchase demand under an agreement between CityMortgage and Equity Bank. Twelve loans were involved, six that had been foreclosed and six that had not. The surprising ruling relates to the six mortgage foreclosures. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court, which had held that the six loans that had been foreclosed no longer existed.

The dissent got it right, however, by stating that the loans were not “liquidated” or “extinguished” by the mortgage foreclosures. The dissent states the obvious: a mortgage is a security interest in real property that serves as collateral for the borrower’s loan. When the mortgage is foreclosed, the underlying promissory note survives and the borrower continues to be liable for the resulting deficiency (absent further action such as a new agreement or a discharge in bankruptcy.)

The article correctly states that the Eighth Circuit transformed recourse loans into non-recourse loans by its ruling. The article also states that non-recourse loans may lead to higher interest rates and larger swings in housing prices.  Purchasers on the secondary market won’t pay as much for non-recourse loans, and, for that reason, this case could have a significant impact on the secondary market if other circuits follow the lead of the Eighth Circuit.

* No. 18-1312 (8th Cir. 2019)

Motley Fool: “Zillow Plans to Do to Real Estate What Amazon Did to Retailing”

Standard

Zillow Offers is not available in South Carolina yet, but it may be a matter of time

zillow logo magnified

This blog has promised to keep South Carolina dirt lawyers informed about the growing phenomenon of home “iBuying”. Please take a look at two recent articles from Motley Fool linked here.

One of the articles, entitled “Zillow Plans to Do to Real Estate What Amazon Did to Retailing”, indicates Zillow is aggressively taking on the neighborhood real estate broker. The other article, entitled “Why Zillow Wants to Pay More for Homes” indicates iBuying is a scale game, meaning the number of homeowners who accept Zillow’s offer increases dramatically with relatively small increases in price.

Zillow has been planning for this game for years. It already has a massive amount of traffic on its site and has accumulated an enormous amount of data. Go take a quick look at the data Zillow is showing about your own home!

To date, according to Motley Fool, Zillow faces intense competition from Opendoor, which leads the iBuying industry, already serving more than 40,000 customers. But Zillow is working hard to catch up. Opendoor operates in 21 markets. Zillow is in 17 of those markets, four additional markets, and plans to open in five more by the middle of 2020.

In early 2017, Zillow dipped its toe into the process of selling homes by launching a product it called “Instant Offers”. The product was initially tested in Las Vegas and Orlando and was described as a method for homeowners to sell their homes for a discounted price without the traditional complications of repairing, listing, staging and allowing for open houses.

The process started with a homeowner providing basic information via Internet about the home (square footage, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and remodeling information) and uploading photos. The Zillow product then connected the homeowner with investors who buy homes in the area, and, typically, an all-cash offer was made by one or more of the investors. The homeowner paid no fee for the service and was not obligated to accept any offers. Zillow touted the product as a method to alleviate the seller’s stress and to allow the seller to close in a shorter time frame.

Other companies, Opendoor and Offerpad were already operating in this space at the time of the Zillow launch. The launch was called another example of technology disrupting the process of closing real estate transactions.

Real estate agents, of course, met the news with alarm. They said sellers would be suckered into making mistakes that might cost them the education of their kids, vacations or just the ability to sleep better at night because they have more money in their bank accounts. An online petition was initiated, asking the National Association of Realtors to threaten Zillow with being removed from access to listings. The NAR responded that it could not sponsor or encourage such a boycott.

Zillow has always stated publicly that it is not in the business of getting rid of real estate agents. Its executives called Zillow a media company, not a real estate company, and said it sold ads, not real estate. Even the Instant Offers program encouraged sellers to use a realtor even while avoiding the traditional listing and sales process. The question then became the amount of commission the real estate agent would earn for reduced services. When real estate agents initially complained about Instant Offers, Zillow responded that 70% of its revenue came from working with real estate agents.

In early 2018, however, Zillow announced that it would begin buying homes directly from sellers and then turning around and selling them. With this announcement, Zillow began selling ads and houses. Two test markets were announced, Las Vegas and Phoenix. Zillow said that when it buys homes, it will make the necessary repairs and updates and list the homes as quickly as possible. Zillow said local real estate agents would represent Zillow in the transactions. Zillow also announced in a press release that the vast majority of sellers who requested an Instant Offer ended up selling their homes with agents.

So far, nothing is in the works for South Carolina as far as we know, but since it is just next door in Atlanta and Charlotte, how long can it be?

Stay tuned for more news on this topic. Real estate lawyers will need to figure out how to remain in the game whether properties are sold through the Internet or not!

This scam hits home!

Standard

Two fugitives arrested in Murrells Inlet

One smart agent avoided involvement by placing a temporary block on her trust account

Warren and Frances Berkle

WBTW TV News 13 in Myrtle Beach reported on November 22 that two fugitives were arrested in Murrells Inlet. Warren Berkle and Frances Berkle were reported to have been wanted in several states at the time of their arrest.

According to the report, the Berkles had been living under false names and living in a house in Murrells Inlet in connection with a lease to purchase arrangement. Police said they received a call from the homeowner who said she had gone through an eviction process because the two were behind in their payments. She said she was concerned that they were not who they said they were, and were possibly squatting in her house.

WBTW reported that Warren Berkle was stopped by police when he was leaving the neighborhood. He had an expired Florida license plate, no insurance, and a driver’s license that was not in his name. A background check indicated Berkle had a valid license in Maryland and was wanted for extradition. A check on Frances Berkle indicated she was wanted in Florida and Pennsylvania.

Horry County police charged Warren Berkle with forgery and obtaining a signature or property under false pretenses, among other offenses. Frances Berkle was being held without bail as a fugitive.

Warren Berkle had pleaded guilty in 1992 to conspiracy to sell worthless insurance policies and mail fraud, a multimillion-dollar scam. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, prosecutors said around 800 insurance policies were sold and premiums were collected using false records and without licenses.

Our very astute agent had been contacted by Warren Berkle numerous times, seeking to wire funds into her trust account to accommodate a real estate transaction. Our agent had “such a bad feeling” about Mr. Berkle that she put a block on her trust account just a short time before he tried to wire funds into her account. This occurred after she told him she was not going to be able to work with him.  She said he seemed so insistent and so evasive when she asked questions that she could not trust him to do business with him.

We are so glad her fraud radar was working so well! She paid attention to clues that saved her from a disaster in her trust account!

A sign of the times?

Standard

Zillow begins to market title and escrow services

welcome to the future sign

A November 12 article in the “Title Report” states that Zillow has begun testing its own title and escrow services in a handful of markets.

After making significant strides in revenues in the third quarter, Zillow is testing the waters in our arena. But, thankfully, we aren’t yet seeing these activities in South Carolina. Zillow had previously used third party title and escrow agents for its transactions. It continues to use third parties in most markets.

A Zillow spokesman told the “Title Report”, “We are also building title and escrow services in-house as a part of our long-term goal of delivering a true, seamless, end-to-end transaction experience for consumers.”

Zillow told the Title Report that more than 80,000 homeowners requested offers in the third quarter. It purchased nearly 2,300 homes and sold more than 1,200 homes in the same time frame. The spokesman said the company believes these results demonstrate that the business model to mechanize real estate transactions is gaining traction as consumer demand reveals people want an easier way to buy, sell, rent and finance homes.

stay tuned

This blog has previously suggested that the role of the local real estate agent may change to assisting sellers in analyzing the various offers they receive from iBuyers plus managing inspections and other steps in the real estate closing channel. As long as closings remain the practice of law in this state, our local dirt lawyers will remain involved in the closing process.

We promise to keep you informed of developments! Watch this space.

What’s first: flying cars or instant home ownership?

Standard

flying car

This headline is blatantly stolen from this article that I recommend for your reading pleasure. This blog, written weekly since late 2014, has two goals: (1) to keep South Carolina real estate lawyers out of trouble; and (2) to keep South Carolina real estate lawyers in business. This article, about the future of home ownership, is recommended to advance the second goal.

Julian Hebron, the author of this article, is the founder of The Basis Point, a sales and strategy consulting business for consumer finance and real estate companies. He has extensive experience in real estate, lending and financial services. Investopedia touts itself as the world’s leading source of financial content on the web. Investopedia commissioned Julian Hebron to explore what home buying, improving and selling will look like in the next twenty year, and he said he jumped at the chance.

The article describes a vision of home buying for consumers in the future:

  • Pull out your phone and search for homes.
  • View homes using full 3-D modeling and video so you can truly “tour” the home right on your phone.
  • See every specification about the home, neighborhood, schools, restaurants, crime, taxes, etc.
  • Tag the homes you like to stay organized.
  • Get notified over time on sales and price changes of homes.
  • Make an offer on a home by pushing a button.
  • Avoid long appraisal process because the home’s value is verified by date and 3-D modeling/video, and this automated valuation method is accepted by all lenders.
  • Close on the home instantly because your loan is always approved via your secure blockchain wallet with realtime income, asset, debt, and credit score data. All you do is schedule licensed and reviewed local movers and contractors to facilitate your move.
  • Schedule moving day food delivery from recommended restaurants in your neighborhood.

And here is the description of home selling in the future:

  • Fill out a short form on your phone saying you’d like to sell your home.
  • Receive a home purchase offer in 1-2 days, and close in as little as seven days.
  • Or shop and hire a licensed and reviewed local realtor to list your home if you don’t like the instant offer.
  • Get asked if you’re purchasing a new home, and, if so, get prompted to follow the home buying steps above.

How close are we to this vision? The author isn’t sure but plans to write future installments to dig deeper into each player in the vision.

Can we stay in the market if this vision comes true? 

I believe we can. I believe our closing law firms should establish strong systems to document processes and keep them current in an effort to be able to nimbly adjust to the changing market. I believe we should stay on top of changes in technology because technology will certainly be a huge driver in these changes. I believe we should continue to establish strong relationships with the players in the real estate industry, particularly the real estate agents. We will all be fighting for business as the market changes, and keeping current on the available information and the current players will be vital to remaining in the game.

This blog will continue to provide South Carolina real estate lawyers with current information to support these efforts. Watch this space!

SC DOR announces implementation of tax lien registry as of Nov. 1

Standard

Nov 1 smaller

SC tax liens will no longer be filed in individual Counties

This blog previously discussed tax lien legislation effective March 28, 2019 that will change the way titles are examined in South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Revenue has announced that the change will be effective November 1.

The announcement indicates the statewide tax lien registry will have a similar look and feel to the Mississippi Department of Revenue Lien Registry, which can be accessed here.

The legislation, an amendment to South Carolina Code §12-54-122, is intended to allow the Department of Revenue (DOR) to implement a statewide system of filing and indexing tax liens centrally, that is, “accessible to the public over the internet or through other means”. Once the new system in in place, the clerks of court and registers of deeds will be relieved of their statutory obligation to maintain newly filed tax liens.

The new law states that it is not to be construed as extending the effectiveness of a tax lien beyond ten years from the filing date, as set out in South Carolina Code §12-54-120.

When the new system is implemented, the law requires a notice to be posted in each county where liens are generally filed providing instructions on how to access the DOR’s tax lien database.

We will keep you posted as more details become available. Title insurance company underwriters will certainly weigh in on this issue.

Rock Hill residential real estate lawyer arrested

Standard

businessman theif briefcase smaller

Thankfully, it has been ten years or more since we’ve heard word “defalcation” used in connection with a South Carolina real estate lawyer. Sadly, we have to use that word in 2019 because a Rock Hill lawyer was arrested on September 13 after funds allegedly went missing from a residential closing. That lawyer, Thomas Givens, was suspended by the South Carolina Supreme Court on September 25.

The closing took place on July 15, but the $166,000 mortgage payoff was never made. Two months later, Givens was arrested and charged with breach of trust over $10,000. The arrest warrant reads that Givens failed to make the mortgage payoff and does not have the funds.

We usually do not experience defalcations when the economy is good. With the economic downturn that began in 2007, we learned the difficult lesson that attorneys who are prone to dip into their trust accounts often manage to keep the balls in the air as long as closings continue to occur. They typically steal from one closing to fund another. They rob Peter to pay Paul.

Like a game of musical chairs, when the music (and closings) stop, bad actor attorneys no longer have closings to provide funds for prior transgressions, and the thefts come to light.

It is a very sad commentary, and one I hoped not to see again.