What is a deed-in-lieu?

Debtors who have defaulted on their obligations under a real estate security agreement typically face foreclosure, either judicial or non-judicial.  A deed in lieu of foreclosure is another type of procedure to deal with a distressed property.  A deed in lieu is a transfer to a lender of title to real estate that fully or partially satisfies the debt that the property secures. These transactions may have significant benefits for both parties. First, a deed in lieu saves much of the time and cost of a foreclosure and gives the lender more direct and immediate control of the property. A deed in lieu may also be beneficial to the debtor if he or she just wants to convey the property and essentially be done with it. 

While deeds in lieu have these advantages there are some potential pitfalls to this procedure.  First, if there are junior mortgages or liens on the property the deed in lieu does not serve to extinguish those liens.  In the event that there are junior liens, chances are good that unless the senior and junior lienholders negotiate an agreement the junior liens will be advanced against the title in the senior lienholder’s hands.  Second, a deed in lieu may be considered to be an equitable mortgage and not a complete conveyance. Only one Washington case has held found a deed in lieu to be an equitable mortgage, but depending on the nature of the transaction it remains a possibility.  Finally, a deed in lieu may be set aside on the grounds of fraud or overreaching. Washington courts have failed to do so thus far but other jurisdictions have done so, particularly when the value of the land exceeds the indebtedness or when the lender is desperate or suffers a disability. 

With these advantages and possible pitfalls in mind, but before a deed in lieu is actually conveyed, the mortgagor and the lender should enter into an agreement that covers these details.

Photo Credit: Renjith Krishnan/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

California courts upholding MERS foreclosure methods, inspite of note/deed of trust issues

Housing Wire's website had an interesting little article about some decisions that are coming out of California regarding MERS and its ability to foreclose on properties without having property assignment of the deeds of trust. 

I speak with a lot of individuals who approach foreclosure from the standpoint that if the foreclosing entity does not have both the note and deed of trust assigned to them, they therefore cannot foreclose.  MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) presented a problem because it dealt with many of these types of arrangements.  We are now starting to see that the court is not buying that argument, and that at a minimum, MERS may act as an agent on behalf of banks to execute their rights under deeds of trust. 

I'm sure there will be more battles forthcoming regarding this issue, but California seems to be laying out at least an initial trend. 

The most telling quote from the short article is the following: 

"MERS' legal standing as mortgagee, or agent of the note holder, gives MERS the authority under California law to take action on behalf of the owner of the note," said Janis Smith, MERS vice president of corporate communications.

(Granted, it's from MERS, so take that into consideration.)

Walking away from a home, may cost you more than you think

According to this article, published on AOL's real estate section, if a homeowner simply "walks away" from a mortgage, Fannie Mae is raising the stakes.  Here is a short quote from the article: 

Here's the breakdown for eligibility depending on how you got out of your last mortgage:


Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure> -- reduced from four years to two years if you can put down 20 percent on your house, four years if you can only put down 10 percent.

Preforeclosure Sale -- remains at two years if you can put down 20 percent, four years if you can only put down 10%.

Short Sale -- will be the same as pre-foreclosure sale. Currently there are no set rules for short sale.

Strategic Default (Walk Away) -- seven years.

 

How do I know whether my deed to property is superior to other, conflicting deeds?

One of the most depressing things to experience as a property owner, is the realization that your rights to property are junior to a third party's. 

In a few recent cases involving condominium parking, parties were locked into a dispute regarding who had rights to particular parking spaces.  To a casual observer, this may not see like a big deal, but to a condo-owner, parking spaces are vital to any future rental opportunities.  (Who wants to live in an apartment where you have no parking space?)

When developers complete condo construction projects, they usually draft and record covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that govern the units overall.  Contained within these document are usually tables that outline specific parking assignments.  However, often times the developers also reserve the right to change those parking assignments to meet the specific needs or wants of prospective property owners.  This allows for not only a degree of flexibility in establishing the parking, but it offers a way for the developer to sweeten the sale of a particular condo by offering specific (usually more convenient) parking spaces.  Once those units are sold, however, and a valid statutory warranty deed is transferred to the buyer of the property, those parking spaces become part of the ownership of that particular condo.  Therefore, any subsequent purchasers of the property cannot claim rights to those parking spaces, regardless of what is contained in the CC&Rs. 

In general, the way that you determine whether your title has superiority to another is twofold.  First, if your title was recorded before the other title was recorded, then you have priority.  Second, the transfer of the property MUST be valid!  In other words, even if you record your deed to the property, the property you receive must have been transferred to you from someone who has the actual ownership rights to do so.