COVID-19

United States Supreme Court terminates eviction moratorium

Standard

Last Thursday, the United States Supreme Court blocked the CDC’s Covid-related eviction moratorium. The eight-page unsigned 6-3 opinion stated Congress was on notice that a further extension would require new legislation but failed to act in the weeks leading up to the moratorium’s expiration.

Congress has approved nearly $50 billion to assist renters. But estimates indicate many states have disbursed less than 5% if the available funds. More than 7 million renters are in default and subject to eviction. Bureaucratic delays at state and local levels have prevented payments that would assist landlords as well as tenants.

At the beginning of the pandemic, Congress adopted a limited, temporary moratorium on evictions. After the moratorium lapsed last July, the CDC issued a new eviction ban. The ban was extended twice more.

The three liberal justices dissented. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Breyer said that the public interest is not supported by the court’s second-guessing of the CDC’s judgment in the fact of the spread of COVID-19.

Landlords, real estate companies and trade associations, led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, who challenged the moratorium in this case, argued that the moratorium was not authorized by the law the CDC relied on, the Public Health Service Act of 1944.

That law, the challengers said, authorized quarantines and inspections to stop the spread of disease but did not give the CDC the “the unqualified power to take any measure imaginable to stop the spread of communicable disease – whether eviction moratoria, worship limits, nationwide lockdowns, school closures or vaccine mandates.”

The CDC argued that the moratorium was authorized by the Public Health Service Act of 1944, and that evictions would accelerate the spread of the virus by forcing people to move into closer quarters in shared housing settings with friends or family or congregate in homeless shelters.

Some states and municipalities have issued their own moratoriums, and some judges have indicated they will slow-walk cases as the pandemic intensifies. We will have to watch and see how the termination of the moratorium interacts with the current backlog of cases in South Carolina. Real estate lawyers should be prepared to advise their landlord and tenant clients.

CFPB issues proposed rule to ban foreclosures until 2022

Standard

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a notice on April 5 proposing an Amendment to Regulation X that would require a temporary COVID-19 emergency pre-foreclosure review period until December 31, 2021, for principal residences. This amendment would, in effect, stall foreclosures on principal residences until January of 2022. The press release, which can be read here, requests public comments on the proposal through May 10, 2021.

The press release states nearly three million borrowers are delinquent in mortgage payments and nearly 1.7 million will exit forbearance programs in September and the following months. The rule proposes to give these borrowers a chance to explore ways to resume making payments and to permit servicers to offer streamlined loan modification options to borrowers with COVID-related hardships.

Under current rules, borrowers must be 120 days delinquent before the foreclosure process can begin. Anticipating a wave of new foreclosures, the CFPB seeks to provide borrowers more time for the opportunity to be evaluated for loss mitigation.

Many provisions of the CARES Act apply only to federally backed mortgages, but the CFPB seeks, by this proposed rules change, to set a blanket standard across the mortgage industry.

COVID forbearance extended

Standard

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has extended COVID-19 foreclosure and forbearance moratoriums through June 30, 2021. It also extended the deadline for the first legal action and the reasonable diligence time frame to 180 days.

COVID-19 forbearance was also extended to allow up to two forbearance extensions of up to three months each for homeowners who requested a forbearance on or before June 30, 2020. These extensions are intended to provide relief to homeowners who will be nearing the end of their maximum 12-month forbearance period and have not yet stabilized their financial situation.

FHA’s streamlined COVID-19 loss mitigation home retention and home disposition options were extended to all homeowners who are behind on their mortgage payments by at least 90 days.

Diana Hoffman, Corporate Escrow Administrator with Fidelity recently wrote an excellent article about mortgage forbearance that I previously shared on this blog and am now sharing again with South Carolina closing attorneys in its entirety:

“Forbearance does not erase what the borrower owes. The borrower will have to repay any missed or reduced payments in the future. Borrowers able to keep up with their payments should continue to make payments. The types of forbearance available varies by loan type.

At the end of the forbearance, the borrower’s options can include paying their missed payments:

  • At one time
  • Spread out over a period of months
  • Added as additional payments, or
  • Added as a lump sum at the end of their mortgage

The CARES Act requires servicers to grant forbearance up to 180 days, with a one–time extension of 180 days for borrowers experiencing a hardship due to COVID–19 issues, such as, loss of income, unemployment, illness or caring for a sick relative.*

The CARES Act also provides protection against derogatory marks against the borrower’s credit. However, the servicer can report notes to the credit bureau that can be seen by any future creditor that could prevent the borrower from obtaining any type of new financing for a 12–month period.

When the Federal Housing Finance Agency reports servicers who collect payments on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they will only be required to cover four months of missed payments on loans in forbearance.

The big question is what happens when that four–month period is over? As it turns out, the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) themselves are preparing to cover any remaining advances for as long as those loans remain in forbearance.

What does this mean to the title industry? To prevent payoff losses due to deferred payments, settlement agents should:

  • Ask borrowers if they have entered into a forbearance or loan modification agreement with their lender at the opening of the transaction
  • Review the preliminary report or commitment for title insurance for junior liens, securing the deferred payments
  • Ensure the payoff request includes the following language:
    • Please furnish to us a statement of the amount necessary to pay in full including any amounts deferred due to a forbearance or modification agreement.
      If the borrower entered into a forbearance agreement and you are not the entity servicing any deferred amounts, please provide the contact information for the entity who is.
  • Review the payoff statement for deferred principal balance amounts

The last item is important. If the deferred amounts are not contained in the payoff statements, it is likely the amounts are being serviced by another loan servicer and a separate payoff statement will need to be requested”

*See above in the main article. Two extensions are now allowed.

Wire fraud advice from industry insiders

Standard

Dirt Lawyers: educate your clients!

Please take a look at this article by Bill Svoboda of CloseSimple entitled “Wire Fraud in the Wake of COVID-19”. The article quotes some industry insiders, including Rick Diamond of our company. Rick was one of our speakers for our recent seminar and often advises real estate lawyers on issues including how to protect client funds.

The article also quotes Tom Conkright of CertifID, one of our office’s solution partners. CertifID has a proven success rate on protecting client funds, including returning client funds that go missing. We highly recommend that you take a look at what CertifID has to offer. Reach out to your agency representative to ask for a demonstration.

But the main purpose of this blog is to remind you to continually educate your clients about wire fraud. Like the victim in this article, many of your clients are pulling up roots and moving to sunny South Carolina. Many of your clients are retirees. The earlier you can give new clients advice about protecting themselves against fraud, the better. Give them advice in bright red, bold print in your engagement letters. Add bright red, bold print warnings under your email signature lines. If you protect one aging consumer by these methods, the effort will be worth it!

Speaking of aging consumers, many of you have heard that I’m retiring in February. One thing that concerns me about retirement is not being able to keep current on industry advice about fraud. If you hear something next year that I should know, give me a call!

What’s up with this crazy housing market during a pandemic?

Standard

I’ve been scratching my head since late February or early March about why the housing market has been doing so well during this crazy coronavirus year. For the first time since I’ve been running our South Carolina operation, I was asked to re-do (reduce) my 2020 budget earlier this year. As it turns out, the original budget my crystal ball predicted last October is closer to reality than the reduced budget from April. In fact, we’re having a record year.

How can we be having a record year in the real estate industry when jobs are being lost and small businesses are closing? Our real estate closing offices are running at full pace, vacations are few and far between, lawyers are trying to hire closing staff members to alleviate the pressure and are finding that task next to impossible. Most lawyers and paralegals are attempting to hang on for the ride, knowing a slow-down will likely occur at some point.

One major factor attributing to the frenzy in the market, of course, would be the record low mortgage rates we’ve experienced this year. Another factor may be the legislative efforts to prop up paychecks and the economy until we have a solution for COVID. Additionally, I keep hearing tales from South Carolina law firms that clients are sick of the houses from which they’ve been working at home and either want to renovate or relocate. I get that! Finally, we hear our friends from the north want to relocate to our sunshiny, beautiful state. I get that, too!

Now, autumn is near, a time where the speed of our business typically slows. But we’re not yet seeing a slowdown. I don’t want to jinx us. That slowdown may yet hit us in 2020. But I read an interesting article from Forbes dated September 11, entitled “The Fall Real Estate Market is Abnormally Hot as Mortgage Rates Break Records.” That article is linked here for your reading pleasure.

This article quotes a Zillow economist who said demand in housing continues to be fueled by low mortgage rates. Who would have predicted the thirty-year mortgage rate would be under 3% and the fifteen-year rate would be under 2.5%? Additionally, home prices continue to increase as inventory shrinks. It’s clearly a seller’s market!

Read this article, real estate friends, to see whether you think it holds true for our fair state. If so, let’s all buckle up for the ride!

CDC announces COVID eviction moratorium through the end of 2020

Standard

On Tuesday, September 1, the CDC announced a temporary eviction moratorium through December 31, 2020. The order applies to all rental units nationwide and goes into effect immediately. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the order applies to around 40 million renters.

The CDC announced the action was needed to stop the spread of the coronavirus and to avoid having renters wind up in shelters or other crowded living conditions. This order goes further than the eviction ban under the CARES Act which covered around 12.3 million renters in apartment complexes of single-family homes financed with federally backed mortgages.

The Order, entitled, “Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, does not suspend mortgage foreclosures. To take advantage of the suspension, the tenant must sign a declaration form alleging:

  1. The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;
  2. The individual either (i) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2020 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return), (ii) was not required to report any income in 2019 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or (iii) received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check) pursuant to Section 2201 of the CARES Act;
  3. The individual is unable to pay the full rent or make a full housing payment due to substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses;
  4. The individual is using best efforts to make timely partial payments that are as close to the full payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit, taking into account other nondiscretionary expenses; and
  5. Eviction would likely render the individual homeless— or force the individual to move into and live in close quarters in a new congregate or shared living setting— because the individual has no other available housing options.

The order specifically does not excuse rent, it just delays eviction. There is a substantial body of depression -era caselaw that holds this type of governmental action is permissible because it does not impair the contract, it only delays the remedy, and it is not a taking because the rent is still due. Lawsuits are likely to follow regardless of this old caselaw.

Many would argue that a temporary ban on eviction for non-payment burdens landlords with the cost of rental delay. Many landlords are individuals or small businesses that cannot spread the losses and cannot pay maintenance costs, mortgages and property taxes without the benefit of rental income.

Excellent forbearance and CARES Act information from our company

Standard

CARES act

Diana Hoffman, Corporate Escrow Administrator with our company recently wrote an excellent article about mortgage forbearance that I am sharing with South Carolina closing attorneys in its entirety:

“Forbearance does not erase what the borrower owes. The borrower will have to repay any missed or reduced payments in the future. Borrowers able to keep up with their payments should continue to make payments. The types of forbearance available varies by loan type.

At the end of the forbearance, the borrower’s options can include paying their missed payments:

  • At one time
  • Spread out over a period of months
  • Added as additional payments, or
  • Added as a lump sum at the end of their mortgage

The CARES Act requires servicers to grant forbearance up to 180 days, with a one–time extension of 180 days for borrowers experiencing a hardship due to COVID–19 issues, such as, loss of income, unemployment, illness or caring for a sick relative.

The CARES Act also provides protection against derogatory marks against the borrower’s credit. However, the servicer can report notes to the credit bureau that can be seen by any future creditor that could prevent the borrower from obtaining any type of new financing for a 12–month period.

When the Federal Housing Finance Agency reports servicers who collect payments on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they will only be required to cover four months of missed payments on loans in forbearance.

The big question is what happens when that four–month period is over? As it turns out, the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) themselves are preparing to cover any remaining advances for as long as those loans remain in forbearance.

What does this mean to the title industry? To prevent payoff losses due to deferred payments, settlement agents should:

  • Ask borrowers if they have entered into a forbearance or loan modification agreement with their lender at the opening of the transaction
  • Review the preliminary report or commitment for title insurance for junior liens, securing the deferred payments
  • Ensure the payoff request includes the following language:
    • Please furnish to us a statement of the amount necessary to pay in full including any amounts deferred due to a forbearance or modification agreement.
      If the borrower entered into a forbearance agreement and you are not the entity servicing any deferred amounts, please provide the contact information for the entity who is.
  • Review the payoff statement for deferred principal balance amounts

The last item is important. If the deferred amounts are not contained in the payoff statements, it is likely the amounts are being serviced by another loan servicer and a separate payoff statement will need to be requested”

Court of Appeals case lets us talk dirt

Standard

oyster shell walkway small

In the midst of COVID-19, it’s a pleasure to return to a simple discussion of South Carolina dirt law. A case decided by our Court of Appeals last week* surrounds the rights of a condominium project’s owner’s association and a successor developer.

The Edgewater on Broad Creek is a luxury condominium project in Hilton Head developed beginning in 2002. The developer, Broad Creek Edgewater, L.P. planned to develop the project on 23.65 acres in multiple phases. Phase 1, located on 7.64 acres of the property, consisted of a building containing 23 units and a clubhouse. The developer recorded a master deed in Beaufort County on December 31, 2002. In the master deed, the developer reserved the right to incorporate the remaining 16.01 acres into future phases.

The developer failed in the great recession. Its creditors placed Broad Creek Edgewater, L.P. into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May of 2007. The bankruptcy court approved a sale of the additional property to Bear Properties, LLC on May 28, 2008. In addition to the property, the successor developer was given all of the developer’s reserved rights by a quitclaim deed and a bill of sale. Later, Bear Properties assigned all its rights and interests to Appian Visions, LLC, which subsequently assigned its rights and interests to Ephesian Ventures, LLC, the appellant in this case.

While the parties are involved in other litigation, this case involves the attempted construction of a pool and tabby walk by the owner’s association on Phase 1. In March of 2010, the association sought a development permit from the Town of Hilton Head to construct a swimming pool. Following a hearing, the permit was granted and the association began construction. Later, the association began constructing a tabby walk leading from the residential building to the swimming pool. Construction was halted when the Town notified the association that an additional permit was required for the tabby walk.

Ephesian administratively opposed the permit to construct the tabby walk, alleging the master deed required its approval for any construction. The Town rescinded approval for the development permits, stating that it planned to hold the matters in abeyance until the covenant issue was resolved. In 2011, the association brought suit in circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment as to Ephesian’s reserved rights in Phase 1. The association sought an order that it had a right to construct a swimming pool and other amenities on Phase 1, subject only to the land use requirements of the Town, free of any interference by Ephesian.

Although the developer argued that other language created an ambiguity,  language focused on by the Master in Equity and Court of Appeals reads:

“The Declarant expressly reserves the right to improve the aforementioned property by clearing, tree pruning, constructing additional parking and common facilities, including, but not necessarily limited to recreational facilities, draining facilities, lagoons, and the like, pertaining to The Edgewater on Broad Creek Horizontal Property Regime.”

The Master in Equity found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, viewing the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the successor developer, as is required in considering summary judgment, that the successor developer maintains the right to construct additional amenities in Phase 1, but that this right is not exclusive.

The Court held that the master deed was unambiguous in its reservation of a non-exclusive right in the developer. Litigation between the parties is likely to continue, so we may be able to discuss further developments later.

Talking dirt law is so refreshing!

 

*The Edgewater on Broad Creek Owners Association, Inc. v. Ephesian Ventures, LLC, Opinion 5724, South Carolina Court of Appeals (May 6, 2020).

 

Are RON closings now allowed in South Carolina?

Standard

After a tease from our Supreme Court on Friday, the answer is still “no”

For about 15 minutes on Friday afternoon, May 1, those of us involved in real estate transactions in South Carolina got excited. An Order* from the South Carolina Supreme Court hit our in-boxes. The order was entitled “RE: Participation in Closings of Real Estate Transactions”. We collectively thought South Carolina may have moved into the 21st Century with an authorization for Remote Online Notarization (RON) closings.

Then we read the order.

You can read it here.

By way of preamble, the Court said, “we find that the public health emergency created by COVID-19 requires changes in the usual operation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in terms of the normal functioning of real estate transactions.”

Then the order stated that until August 1, lawyers may “participate in and supervise the closing of a real estate transaction by way of a video conference.”

Fair enough, but I think most South Carolina transactional lawyers believed they could already ethically handle closings via video conference.

Most lawyers definitely believed they can ethically handle “mail away closings.” Were we wrong? Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-16 states that an attorney may ethically conduct real estate closings by mail as long as it is done in a way that: (1) ensures that the attorney is providing competent representation to the client; (2) all aspects of the closing remain under the supervision of an attorney; and (3) the attorney complies with the duty to communicate with the client so as to maintain the attorney-client relationship and be in a position to explain and answer any questions about the documents sent to the client for signature.

To meet this test, according to the EAO, clients must have reasonable means to be in contact with the attorney, by telephone, facsimile, or electronic transmission. The EAO further states that there is no legal requirement that a client attend the closing, but that it must be the client’s decision not to attend the closing.

Ethics Advisory Opinions are, of course, not binding on the South Carolina Supreme Court. But if we rely on the EAO and handle mail-away closings, why can we not also handle closings via video conference, as long as we comply with all of our ethical obligations to properly represent our clients? Technology has changed since 2005!

Setting that issue aside, let’s look at the real problem. The primary obstacle to any closing that is not conducted strictly in the presence of the lawyer is the proper notarization of the recordable documents. According to South Carolina Code §26-1-5, the notary must be in the physical presence of the signatory. For this reason, clients and their lawyers must employ notaries in the client’s location when the client and the lawyer are not in the same location.

Did the May 1 Supreme Court order fix the notary problem at least temporarily? Lawyers who have spent the last four days debating this question via listserv and Facebook have decided that it does not. But did the Court try to help? Maybe.

The Order goes on to say, “necessary persons to a real estate transaction may, under the direction of the supervising attorney, similarly participate in the real estate closing by way of a video conference, provided any necessary person so consents; further, the supervising attorney shall ensure that the attestation of a recordable instrument is accomplished, which may be satisfied by use of real-time audio-visual communication technology, provided the identity of the necessary person is confirmed and a notary attests the signature of any necessary person.” (Emphasis added.)

Giving the Court the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the Justices did not attempt to fix the notary problem but, instead, believed they must address the professional responsibility aspects of the closing process to allow the legislature and governor address the statutory notary issue.

I think I am going to go with that interpretation. Otherwise the Order is useless.

And, I have another concern. Anyone of us who has read and struggled with the facts in the notorious Quicken** case knows that the Court by implication blessed dividing the various aspects of the closing that must be handled by an attorney among many attorneys. But the final sentence of this Order reads, “This order does not suspend any other provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and nothing in this order is intended to relieve an attorney of his or her obligation to assume the full professional and direct responsibility for the entire transaction.” (Emphasis added.)

I am so confused!

 

*Order 2020-05-01-01, South Carolina Supreme Court.

**Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 420 S.C. 452, 803 S.E.2d707 (2017).

Disrupted Disrupters

Standard

COVID-19 is causing the iBuyers’ business model to stall

cell phone home sale small

With COVID-19 spreading, the iBuying frenzy seems to be fading fast. Commerce is slowing and even closing in some locations, especially major cities, making it difficult for iBuyers to determine fair prices for homes. Zillow, Redfin, Opendoor and Offerpad have all withdrawn from the iBuying market for the time being.

The only company not putting on the brakes seems to be HomeVestors, the “We Buy Ugly Houses” company that was in the iBuying space before that term became cool. The companies recently occupying this space never made it to South Carolina, but we saw “We Buy Ugly Houses” signs on telephone poles throughout the state, even in the most rural areas.

Some economists are speculating that COVID-19 may put a nail in the coffin of the “institutional fix-and flip” business model of those companies recently entering the market. The model was considered risky in the best of times. In times of economic uncertainty, it becomes even riskier. Safely buying a home at 95% of the market value requires confidence that the market won’t drop substantially.

HomeVestors, on the other hand, is attempting to grow by selling franchises and advertising that it remains in the market that others are leaving.

Other economists and some of the companies themselves are arguing that iBuying is a viable alternative in a market where it’s difficult to show homes and hold open houses. At this point, the correct answer is anybody’s guess.

The retreat of Zillow, Redfin, Opendoor and Offerpad before they even reach South Carolina is good news to South Carolina closing attorneys and real estate agents who view the iBuying phenomenon as another disruption to our business model as well as another possible means of dilution of control over residential closings by attorneys.

It sounds as if, for now, truly ugly houses may be the only ones subject to iBuying in South Carolina. The disrupters have been disrupted by economic uncertainty.