Foreclosure Activity Up 53% Over June 2007

Default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions were reported on 252,363 U.S. properties during June 2008, a 3 percent decrease from the previous month but still a 53 percent increase from June 2007, according to the latest RealtyTrac Foreclosure Market Report.

The report also shows that one in every 501 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing during the month.

“June was the second straight month with more than a quarter million properties nationwide receiving foreclosure filings,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “Foreclosure activity slipped 3 percent lower from the previous month, but the year-over-year increase of more than 50 percent indicates we have not yet reached the top of this foreclosure cycle. Bank repossessions, or REOs, continue to increase at a much faster pace than default notices or auction notices. REOs in June were up 171 percent from a year ago, while default notices were up 38 percent and auction notices were up 22 percent over the same time period.”

Nevada, California and Arizona continued to document the three highest state foreclosure rates in June.  Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana and Utah were other states that made the top ten.

For the third month in a row, California and Florida cities accounted for nine out of the top 10 metropolitan foreclosure rates among the 230 metropolitan areas tracked in the report.

RealtyTrac noted that “Foreclosure filings were reported on 8,713 Nevada properties during the month, up nearly 85 percent from June 2007, and one in every 122 Nevada households received a foreclosure filing — more than four times the national average.”

“One in every 192 California properties received a foreclosure filing in June, the nation’s second highest state foreclosure rate and 2.6 times the national average.”

“One in every 201 Arizona properties received a foreclosure filing during the month, the nation’s third highest state foreclosure rate and nearly 2.5 times the national average. Foreclosure filings were reported on 12,950 Arizona properties, down less than 1 percent from the previous month but still up nearly 127 percent from June 2007.”

“Foreclosure filings were reported on 68,666 California properties in June, down nearly 5 percent from the previous month but still up nearly 77 percent from June 2007. California’s total was highest among the states for the 18th consecutive month.”

“Florida continued to register the nation’s second highest foreclosure total, with foreclosure filings reported on 40,351 properties in June — an increase of nearly 8 percent from the previous month and an increase of nearly 92 percent from June 2007. One in every 211 Florida properties received a foreclosure filing during the month, the nation’s fourth highest state foreclosure rate and 2.4 times the national average.”

“Foreclosure filings were reported on 13,194 Ohio properties in June, the nation’s third highest state foreclosure total. Ohio’s foreclosure activity increased 7 percent from the previous month and 11 percent from June 2007. The state’s foreclosure rate ranked No. 6 among the 50 states. Other states in the top 10 for total properties with filings were Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Georgia, Nevada, Illinois and New York.”

“Seven California metro areas were in the top 10, and the top three rates were in California: Stockton, with one in every 72 households receiving a foreclosure filing; Merced, withone in every 77 households receiving a foreclosure filing; and Modesto, with one in every 86 households receiving a foreclosure filing. Other California metro areas in the top 10 were Riverside-San Bernardino at No. 5; Vallejo-Fairfield at No. 7; Bakersfield at No. 8; and Salinas-Monterey at No. 10.”

“The top metro foreclosure rate in Florida was once again posted by Cape Coral-Fort Myers, where one in every 91 households received a foreclosure filing — fourth highest among the nation’s metro foreclosure rates. The foreclosure rate in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ranked No. 9. LasVegas continued to be the only city outside of California and Florida with a foreclosure rate ranking among the top 10. One in every 99 Las Vegas households received a foreclosure filing in June, more than five times the national average and No. 6 among the metro areas.”

“Metro areas with foreclosure rates among the top 20 included Phoenix at No. 12, Detroit at No. 13, Miami at No. 15 and San Diego at No. 17”

RealtyTrac does not expect foreclosure activity to ease up until 2009.

Real Estate Values Per Square Foot Down More than 20% in Six Major Markets

Real estate prices continue to fall in most markets, according to Radar Logic Incorporated, a real estate data and analytics company that calculates per-square-foot valuations.

Among the key findings of the latest report from Radar Logic:

• The broad housing slump continued as consumers showed persistent lack of confidence and difficulty in financing home purchases.
• April 2008 continued to exhibit price per square foot (PPSF) weakness compared to last year in almost all markets. One MSA showed net year-over-year PPSF appreciation, one was neutral, and 23 declined.
• The Manhattan Condo market showed a 3.6% increase in PPSF year-over-year coupled with an increase in recent transactions despite a modest decline of 0.7% in month-over-month prices.
• Charlotte’s increase of 1.5% in year-over-year PPSF moved its rank among the 25 MSAs to number 1. This represents an increase over the 0.1% year-over-year PPSF appreciation last month.
• Columbus showed year-over-year PPSF appreciation of 0.2% for April 2008, which is an increase from last month’s year-over-year decline of 4.3%.
• New York declined 3.0% year-over-year in April 2008, its second decline in Radar Logic’s published history (beginning in 2000).
• Sacramento, the lowest-ranking MSA, showed a 31.7% decline from April 2007, which is consistent with last month’s decline of 30.6%.

 The ten biggest declines in per-square-foot values from last year were in these markets:

Sacramento (-31.7%)

Las Vegas (-29.9%),

San Diego (-28.1%)

Phoenix (-25.6%).

Los Angeles/Orange County (-23.4%).

Miami (-22.4%).

St. Louis (-19.8%).

San Francisco (-19.7%).

Tampa (-16.6%).

Detroit (-16.1%).

You can read the full Radar Logic report here.

Major Law Firm Creates “Distressed Real Estate” Section as Crisis Deepens

In what could be a new and significant trend in American legal practice — and a sign that the real estate crisis is expanding — the prestigious Philadelphia-based law firm Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP has announced that it is establishing a “distressed real estate” section. 

The firm’s “Distressed Real Estate Initiative” will involve at least 16 core lawyers in ten offices throughout the country, including those in Mid-Atlantic and Western locations hardest hit by the housing bust and the mortgage crisis, including Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

The purpose of the section, according to the firm, will be “to provide representation in acquisition, restructuring and bankruptcy matters.”

 “In this period of turmoil in the financial markets and economic uncertainty, new real estate opportunities and challenges present themselves,” said Michael Sklaroff, chair of Ballard’s Real Estate Department. “We stand ready to serve clients with respect to existing positions and also in assisting them in acquisitions and debt and equity investments in troubled projects.”

Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll was founded in 1886 and now employs more than 550 lawyers in twelve offices located throughout the mid-Atlantic corridor and the western United States.

When there is blood in the water, the sharks will appear.

What Property Qualifies for a 1031 Exchange? (Part Three)

This is Part Three of our series on what property qualifies for a 1031 exchange.  You can also see Part One and Part Two.

In deciding whether a particular property has been held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment, the IRS looks at how you have characterized that property on your tax returns. If you have historically taken depreciation on or reported rental income on a property, there should not be any problem with that property qualifying for a Section 1031 exchange.

In addition, it is important to note that the IRS has ruled that the Section 1031 requirement that property be “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment” excludes primary residences, vacation homes (when they are not held for investment), and second homes. When a personal residence is exchanged for other property, the Section 121 exclusion rule applies (providing that up to $250,000 of capital gain, or up to $500,000 for a married couple, is not taxable), not Section 1031.

The burden of establishing that a property is held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment (and not for a non-qualifying use such as inventory for resale) is on the exchanger, not the government.

The “for investment” requirement is somewhat trickier than the requirement that the property be “held for productive use in a trade or business,” since all property could conceivably be considered an investment.

Each property must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. What the IRS looks at is the intent of the property owner and whether, on balance, the property is held for investment purposes or personal enjoyment.

If you want to do a Section 1031 exchange of property that you now use as your primary residence or as a second or vacation home, you must first turn it into qualifying property that is productively used in a trade or business or for investment. In other words, even property you have used as a primary residence, a second home, or primarily for personal enjoyment as a vacation home, may still qualify for an exchange under Section 1031 – if you re-characterize that property by using it for business purposes for a sufficient period of time.

The date the IRS uses to determine whether property has been held for a qualifying business use is the date of the transaction; any previous use is theoretically irrelevant. There is also no clear rule regarding how long a “holding period” is required in order to re characterize property and qualify for a Section 1031 exchange. Tax advisors recommend a period of one to two years (opinion is split on which time period is sufficient, but in no case less than 12 months) in the new use, and that you are able to report rental income and deduct depreciation and other business expenses regarding the property on your tax returns for that period of time.

It should also be noted that one can also exchange many types of non-real estate property that is held for investment or used in a business. For example, an airline can sell its airplanes as part of a like-kind exchange and avoid recapture of depreciation.

But the “like-kind” requirement is interpreted much more narrowly by the IRS for non-real property than for real property. While any real property held for trade or business use or for investment and located in the United States can be exchanged for any other real property held for trade or business use or for investment use and located in the United States, non-real estate properties exchanged under Section 1031 must be essentially the same type of asset.

Airplanes can be exchanged for airplanes, trucks for trucks, pizza ovens for pizza ovens, oil digging equipment for oil digging equipment; but airplanes cannot be exchanged for trucks, and oil digging equipment cannot be exchanged for pizza ovens. In addition, franchise rights and certain types of licenses can also be exchanged under Section 1031.

The replacement property, like the relinquished property, must meet certain requirements to be eligible for a Section 1031 exchange.

First, the replacement property, like the relinquished property, must be property, not securities or services, and it must be intended for “productive use in a trade or business or for investment.” 

Section 1031 applies only to “the exchange of property…for property.” For this reason, you cannot exchange property for securities or services. As with the relinquished property, this is a matter of the how the exchanger intends to use the property. The use of either property by the other party in the exchange is irrelevant.

Second, the replacement property must be of a “like-kind” to the relinquished property. What does “like-kind” property mean? In a typically obtuse ruling, the IRS has stated that:

“As used in IRC 1031(a), the words like-kind has reference to the nature or character of the property and not to its grade or quality. One kind or class of property may not, under that section, be exchanged for property of a different kind or class. The fact that any real estate involved is improved or unimproved is not material, for that fact relates only to the grade or quality of the property and not to its kind or class. Unproductive real estate held by one other than a dealer for future use or future realization of the increment in value is held for investment and not primarily for sale.”

Got it? Okay, now let’s unpack the “like-kind” requirement in language that makes sense.

As used in Section 1031, “like-kind” property does not mean property that is exactly alike – or even alike at all in any normal sense. Instead, the IRS interprets the “like-kind” requirement very broadly – so broadly that if two or more properties are located in the United States and are held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment, they are considered “like-kind” property under Section 1031.

In other words, all real property located in the United States is considered “like-kind” to all other real property located in the United States.

Conversely, foreign property such as property located in Canada or Mexico) or in overseas U.S. possessions, such as Guam or Puerto Rico, is not considered “like-kind” to any property located in the United States.

But urban real estate in Los Angeles can be exchanged for a ranch in Utah, a ranch in Utah can be exchanged for a factory in Delaware, a factory in Delaware can be exchanged for a gas station in Las Vegas, and a gas station in Las Vegas can be exchanged for a conservation easement in Seattle. The quality or type of the real property does not matter so long as each real property is located in the United States. Under Section 1031, an apartment building in Chicago can be exchanged for an office building in Los Angeles, an office building in New York can be exchanged for a car wash in Nashville, a car wash in Seattle can be exchanged for a tenancy-in-common ownership in a resort in San Diego, and a tenancy-in-common ownership in a mall in Arizona can be exchanged fortimberland in Oregon, a farm in Wisconsin, a factory in Pennsylvania, or a gas station in Louisiana.

The fact that one property is improved and the other property is unimproved, or that one property is in a run-down part of a city while the other property is located in an upscale neighborhood is irrelevant.  Moreover, even partially completed property can, if properly identified, qualify as “like-kind” property with completed property. The “like-kind” requirement refers to the nature or character of property, not to its grade or quality. As long as a property is located in the United States and is “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment,” it is “like-kind” to every other property located in the United States that is “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment.”

See also “What Property Qualifies for a 1031 Exchange?” Part One and Part Two.

To contact Melissa J. Fox for 1031 exchange or other real estate or legal services, send an email to strategicfox@gmail.com

State of Washington Fines Countrywide for $1 Million for Discriminatory Lending — Will Seek to Revoke Countrywide’s License to Do Business in State

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire today announced plans by her state to fine Countrywide Home Loans $1 million for discriminatory lending.

In addition, the company will be required to pay more than $5 million in back assessments the company failed to pay.

Gregoire also announced the state is seeking to revoke Countrywide’s license to do business in Washington for its alleged illegal activity.

Joining Gregoire at today’s announcement was Deb Bortner, director of consumer services at the Washington state Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), and James Kelly, president of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle.

“The allegation that Countrywide preyed on minority borrowers is extremely troubling to me,” Gregoire said. “And I hope to learn eventually just how much this may have contributed to foreclosures in our state. The allegation offers evidence that Countrywide engaged in a pattern to target minority groups and engage in predatory practices.”

“That’s why we intend to bring the full weight of the state on Countrywide to rewrite home loans for minority borrowers who may have been misled into signing predatory mortgages,” the governor noted. “My job is to protect hard-working Washingtonians, and protect them we will.”

DFI is required to examine every home-lender licensed in the state of Washington. The agency conducted its fair lending examination of Countrywide last year. At that time, DFI looked at roughly 600 individual loan files and uncovered evidence that Countrywide engaged in discriminatory lending that targeted Washington’s minority communities. The agency also found significant underreporting of loans during its investigation.

“The Urban League is seeing far too many families caught up in the mortgage crisis who are being steered into bad loans,” stated James Kelly. “Today’s announcement from the governor is consistent with her message of protecting Washingtonians from national mortgage instability.”

DFI sent Countrywide a statement of charges on June 23, notifying the company of the fine and the back assessments the state plans to pursue.  Washington says that the investigation continues.

We have written on the disproportionate impact that the mortgage meltdown and housing crisis has had on minorities.

Washington’s action against Countrywide comes on the heels of lawsuits for fraud, deception, and unfair trade practices filed against Countrywide by the states of Illinois, California, and Florida.

 

Florida Joins States Suing Countrywide

Florida has joined Illinois and California as states suing subprime lender Countrywide Financial for deceptive and unfair trade practices.

The Florida lawsuit claims that Countrywide put borrowers into mortgages they couldn’t afford or loans with rates and penalties that were misleading.

As in the Illinois and California actions, Countrywide CEO Executive Angelo Mozilo was also named as a defendant.

Here you can read the complaint filed Broward County Circuit Court in Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida v. Countywide Financial Corp., Countrywide Home Loans Inc., and Angelo Mozilo.

Here you can read our earlier reports on the Illinois and California lawsuits against Countrywide.

In filing the lawsuit, Florida Attorney General William “Bill” McCollum said that “It is unthinkable that a company would try to take advantage of someone’s dream of homeownership. Florida homeowners who are trying to protect their homes from foreclosures shouldn’t have to worry about their mortgage brokers or lenders unfairly profiting at their expense.”

“Similar to other mortgage lenders, Countrywide attempted to generate large numbers of mortgage loans for resale on the secondary mortgage market. In doing so, the company purportedly originated loans with little concern about whether the borrower could afford and maintain payments on these loans. In the process, the company allegedly eased or ignored its own underwriting standards and encouraged borrowers to enter into “teaser” rates while concealing or misrepresenting that much larger payments would become due.”

According to Marc Taps of Legal Services of North Florida, “Our legal services programs throughout the state have seen a large number of clients who are now in default on mortgages written by Countrywide. It appears to us Countrywide did no due diligence and accepted applications which were patently fraudulent and reflected no ability on the part of the borrowers to make the required payments. We cannot help but conclude that the most financially unsophisticated segment of the population was targeted by the brokers who knew Countrywide would write these mortgages.”

The lawsuit also claims that Countrywide hid any potentially negative effects of “teaser” loans, including rising rates, prepayment penalties and negative amortization, which borrowers would inevitably face if they were making minimum payments or trying to refinance.

Traditionally, lenders require borrowers to document income and assets, but investigators with the Attorney General’s Office believe Countrywide offered reduced or no documentation loan programs to increase its loan sales. Countrywide also allegedly paid greater compensation to brokers for loans with higher interest rates and prepayment penalties because it could sell those loans for higher prices on the secondary market.

The Florida Attorney General’s Office also asserts that “[Countrywide’s] deceptive marketing practices were supposedly designed to sell costly loans while hiding or misrepresenting the terms and dangers. Countrywide’s deceptive sales practices resulted in a large number of loans ending in default and foreclosure, with the company reporting earlier this year that more than 25 percent of its subprime loans were delinquent. The Attorney General’s Office received more than 150 complaints about Countrywide, prompting a subpoena in February and ultimately leading to today’s lawsuit.”

In a sign that the growing state legal assault on Countrywide is a bipartisan project, McCollum is the first Republican state attorney general to sue Countrywide.

As we’ve observed before, Countrywide’s expanding legal troubles do not bode well for Bank of America, which plans to acquire Countrywide.

Adding to the pressure on Bank of America to abandon the Countrywide deal, McCollum vowed that he would go after Bank of America’s assets to pay for the damages owed by Countrwide if the sale goes through.

Florida asks consumers who believe they have been victimized by Countrywide to call the Attorney General’s fraud hotline at 1-866-966-7226 or  file a complaint online at: http://myfloridalegal.com.

 UPDATE:

The state of Washington is expected to file a lawsuit against Countrywide soon, accusing Countrywide of discriminating against minority borrowers. The state wants to fine the mortgage lender and revoke its license to conduct business in the state.

Windfall for Lender – Or Will Natural Gas Discovery Benefit Victims of Ed Okun’s 1031 Tax Group Scam?

There’s a new ripple in the story of indicted 1031 exchange scammer Edward Okun, the 1031 Tax Group, and their victims.

Cordell Funding is a Miami-based hard money mortgage lender. Last fall, Cordell Funding sued Okun to recover $17 million it had loaned to Okun before his fraud-riddled real estate empire collapsed into bankruptcy actions and criminal indictments.

Cordell Funding initially sued Okun in a New York state court, but a federal judge transferred the suit to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, where Gerard McHale, the court-appointed Chapter 11 trustee of Okun’s 1031 Tax Group, was selling off Okun’s assets.

As part of that bankruptcy case, McHale turned over the rights to several Okun properties to Cordell. One of the properties that McHale turned over to Cordell was the Shreveport Industrial Park, a nearly empty 42-year-old, 956,735-square-foot Class C industrial distribution building at 9595 Mansfield Road in Shreveport, Louisiana.

It wasn’t worth much — certainly not the $17 million that Cordell said it was owed by Okun.

Then natural gas was discovered in the area. 

In fact, it was discovered that under the Shreveport Industrial Park is the largest onshore natural gas field in North America.   It could hold as much as 20 trillion cubic-feet equivalent of natural gas reserves.

The mineral rights lease for the Sheveport Industrial Park is now valued at somewhere between $30 and $60 million.

And property values for the area have soared.

It looks like Cordell Funding got a windfall from the bankruptcy court. 

But when the natural gas field was discovered, bankruptcy trustee McHale went back to court to have the bankruptcy judge of the 1031 Tax Group vacate the order giving Cordell Funding rights to the Shreveport property. At the same time, McHale has asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a mineral rights lease with PetroHawk Energy for the benefit of the 1031 Tax Group victims.

Now whether Cordell Funding or the hundreds of creditors of the 1031 Tax Group gets the millions of dollars from the Shreveport natural gas discovery will be determined by the bankruptcy court.

UPDATE:

For the latest on Ed Okun (new federal indictments, plus the indictments of Laura Coleman and Richard B. Simring), click here.

California Sues Countrywide for Mortgage Deception

California has joined Illinois today as states suing beleaguered subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial Corp. for deceptive loan practices.

In a lawsuit filed this morning in Los Angeles Superior Court, California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued Countrywide Financial, its chief executive Angelo Mozilo, and president David Sambol, for engaging in deceptive advertising and unfair competition by pushing homeowners into mass-produced, risky loans for the sole purpose of reselling the mortgages on the secondary market.

The lawsuit alleges that Countrywide Financial used deceptive tactics to push homeowners into complicated, risky, and expensive loans so that the company could sell as many loans as possible to third-party investors. 

The complaint also alleges that the company marketed complex and difficult to understand loans with very low initial or “teaser” interest rates or payments. Countrywide employees, including loan officers, underwriters, and branch managers–who were under intense pressure to process a constantly increasing number of loans–misrepresented or obfuscated the fact that borrowers who obtained certain types of loans would experience dramatic increases in monthly payments.

Here you can read the complaint filed in California v. Countrywide Financial Corp, Full Spectrum Lending, Angelo Mozilo, and David Sabol.

According to the Calfornia Attorney General’s Office, “In the past, lenders like Countrywide sold home loans to customers and held the loans in their own portfolio, an incentive to maintain strong underwriting standards. Countrywide, however, sold its loans to third-parties in the form of securities or whole loans, often earning more profit for riskier loans. The business model generated windfall profits for Countrywide.”

“The company pushed these loans by emphasizing a low “teaser” or initial rate, often as low as 1 percent for pay option ARMs. Countrywide obscured the negative effects–including rising rates, prepayment penalties and negative amortization–which would inevitably result from making minimum payments or trying to refinance. The company misrepresented or hid the fact that borrowers who obtained its home loans–including exploding adjustable rates and negatively amortizing loans–would experience dramatic increases in monthly payments.”

“In an effort to rope in as many customers as possible, Countrywide greatly relaxed and liberally granted exceptions to its mortgage lending standards. Traditionally, lenders required borrowers to document income and assets but Countrywide offered reduced or no documentation loan programs to increase its loan sales. Angelo Mozilo and David Sambol actively pushed for easing underwriting standards and granting exceptions to documentation requirements.”

“In Countrywide’s 2006 annual report, the company touted the massive growth of its loan production from $62 billion in 2000 to $463 billion in 2006–three times the increase of the U.S. residential loan production market, which tripled from $1.0 trillion in 2000 to $2.9 trillion in 2006. 26 percent of Countywide loans were for California properties. The company sold an ever-increasing number of loans in an effort to gain a 30 percent market share of loan originations and then sell its loans on the secondary market, as mortgage-backed securities or pools of whole loans. Countrywide’s securities trading volume increased from $647 billion in 2000 to $3.8 trillion in 2006.”

“Countrywide routinely sold loans based upon a borrower’s stated income and without verifying the information. Loan officers memorized scripts that marketed low payments by focusing on the potential customer’s dissatisfaction, saying, for example, ‘Which would you rather have, a long-term fixed payment, or a short-term one that may allow you to realize several hundred dollars a month in savings?’ The loan officer did not state that the payment on this new loan would exceed the payment on the current loan.

“Countrywide paid greater compensation to brokers for loans with a higher interest rates, as well as prepayment penalties, because it could sell those loans for higher prices on the secondary market. Countrywide also paid rebates to brokers who originated loans with prepayment penalties, adjustable rates and high margins.”

“Countrywide operated an extensive telemarketing operation in which it touted its expertise and claimed to find the best financial options for customers. Customer Service representatives at Countrywide call centers were required to complete calls within three minutes, often processing sixty-five to eight-five calls per day. Employees who did not meet quotas were terminated. The company’s deceptive marketing practices, designed to sell costly loans while hiding or misrepresenting the terms and dangers, included:

• Encouraging borrowers to refinance or obtain financing with complicated mortgage instruments like hybrid adjustable rate mortgages or payment option adjustable mortgages;
• Marketing complex loan products by emphasizing a very low “teaser” rate while misrepresenting the steep monthly payments, increased interest rates and risk of negative amortization;
• Dramatically easing underwriting standards to qualify more people for loans;
• Using low or no-documentation loans which allowed no verification of stated income;
• Hiding total monthly payment obligations by selling homeowners a second mortgage in the form of a home equity line of credit;
• Making borrowers sign a large stack of documents without provider time to read the paperwork; and
• Misrepresenting or hiding the fact that loans had prepayment penalties.”

“As the secondary market’s appetite for loans increased, Countrywide further relaxed its standards to finance borrowers with ever-decreasing credit scores. Countrywide employees routinely overrode the company’s computerized underwriting system, known as CLUES, which issued loan analysis reports recommending or discouraging loans based on factors such as a consumer’s credit rating. As the pressure to produce loans increased, Countrywide set up an entire department in Plano, Texas, at the direction of Mozilo and Sambol, where employees could submit requests for underwriting exceptions. In 2006, 15,000 to 20,000 loans a month were processed through this exception process.>

“Countrywide’s deceptive sales practices resulted in a large number of loans ending in default and foreclosure. According to Countrywide’s February 2008 records, a staggering 27 percent of its subprime mortgages were delinquent. Overall, approximately 20,000 Californians lost their homes to foreclosure in May 2008 and 72,000 California homes were in default, roughly 1 out of 183 homes.”

“Despite receiving numerous complaints from borrowers claiming that they did not understand their loan terms, Countrywide ignored loan officer’s deceptive practices and loose underwriting standards. Countrywide also pushed its borrowers to serially refinance, repeatedly urging borrowers to obtain home loans to pay off their current debt.”

The California Attorney General’s Office asks that consumers who believe they have been victimized by Countrywide Consumers should file a complaint by contact the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit in writing at Attorney General’s Office California Department of Justice Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, California or through an online complaint form available at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL

 

Illinois Sues Countrywide and Mozilo For Fraud and Deception

In the first state action against Countrywide Financial, the Attorney General of Illinois is suing Countrywide and its chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, claiming that the company and its executives engaged in unfair and deceptive practices that defrauded borrowers by selling them costly and defective loans that quickly went into foreclosure.

Here you can read the complaint in Illinois v. Countrywide Financial Corp., Countywide Home Loans Inc., Full Spectrum Lending, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, and Angelo R. Mozilo. 

The lawsuit, which will be filed on Wednesday in Cook County, accuses Countrywide and Mozilo of improper underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, including its still heavily advertised “no closing costs loan.” 

The complaint also alleges that Countrywide created incentives for its employees and brokers to sell questionable loans by paying them more on such sales.

The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of monetary damages and requests that the court require Countrywide to rescind or reform all the questionable loans it sold from 2004 through the present. 

In addition, the lawsuit asks the Court to require that Mozilo personally contribute to paying the damages.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan also asks the court for 90 days to review any loans currently in foreclosure or moving toward foreclosure.

The complaint states that Countrywide was the largest lender in Illionis from 2004 through 2006, selling about 94,000 loans to consumers in the state. The company operated about 100 retail branch offices in Illinois and its loans were also offered by Illinois mortgage brokers. Countrywide also purchased loans through a network of 2,100 correspondent lenders in the state.

The complaint also describes dubious practices in Countrywide’s huge servicing arm, which oversees $1.5 trillion in loans. 

For example, the complaint alleges that an Illinois consumer whose Countrywide mortgage was in foreclosure came home to find that the company had changed her locks and boarded up her home, although no judgment had been entered and no foreclosure sale conducted, and that It took a week for the homeowner to regain access to her home.

Attorney General Madigan claims that “People were put into loans they did not understand, could not afford and could not get out of. This mounting disaster has had an impact on individual homeowners statewide and is having an impact on the global economy. It is all from the greed of people like Angelo Mozilo.”

The lawsuit is being filed on the same day that Countrywide’s shareholders will meet to decide whether to agree to a sale of the company to Bank of America.

We’ve written before about why we think that Bank of America will ultimately pull out of the deal. 

Adding to the arguments that we earlier made against Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide, the New York Times notes that “The lawsuit adds to the considerable legal risks facing Bank of America as it prepares to absorb Countrywide in a takeover announced in January. Countrywide and its executives have been named as defendants in shareholder lawsuits, and the company’s practices are the subject of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the F.B.I. and the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees loan servicing companies.”

In addition to the Illinois lawsuit, at least three lawsuits against Countrywide have been filed by offices of the U. S. Trustee, part of the Department of Justice that monitors the bankruptcy system,  contending that Countrywide’s loan servicing practices were an abuse of the bankruptcy system.

Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo also has troubles of his own. 

Mozilo is the subject of a Securities and Exchanges Commission investigation into his sales of Countrywide stock before the price imploded; from 2005 to 2007 Angelo R. Mozilo sold much of his Countrywide stock realizing $291.5 million in profits.

And, as we’ve reported, Mozilo is at the center of the new controversy regarding recent revelations that politically connected “Friends of Angelo,” including  U.S. Senators Christopher Dodd (D- Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N. Dak.), as well as members of both the current Bush and previous Clinton administrations, got special “V.I.P.” loans with extremely favorable terms from Countrywide.

In the last three quarters, Countrywide reported $2.5 billion in losses, and in the first quarter of 2008, total nonperforming assets reached $6 billion, almost five times that of the same period last year.

UPDATE:

California has also sued Countrywide for deceptive practices. 

You can read the story here.

You can also read the complaint in California v. Countrywide Financial Corp, Full Spectrum Lending, Angelo Mozilo, and David Sabol.

 

The “Friends of Angelo” — Countrywide’s Sweetheart Loans to Washington Big-Shots

The scandal involving special “sweetheart” loans to politicians and Washington insiders by Countrywide Financial is both heating up and widening.

Earlier this week, James A. Johnson was forced to step down as head of Barack Obama’s vice president selection team when it was revealed that he had profited from special deals on three home loans with Countrywide that were approved by Countrywide founder Angelo Mozilo only for his “close friends.”

At that time, we wrote that “Given its central role in the subprime mortgage debacle, it is no surprise that Countrywide Financial has become politically radioactive. The most recent evidence for the politically deadly consequences of an association with Countrywide or its corporate officers is the sudden and ungraceful exit of businessman James A. Johnson, a long time Washington insider and lobbyist, from Barack Obama’s vice-presidential selection team.”

Now it appears that Mozilo had a much larger circle of “close friends” in Congress and in recent Democrat and Republican administrations than was originally supposed, and that sweatheart loan deals were given by Countrywide to a wide array of Washington politicians and big-shots.

The “Friends of Angelo” list is now known to include Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Senator Kent Conrad (D-N. Dak.), Bush’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Clinton Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and Clinton Assistant Secretary of State Richard C. Holbrooke.

According to Portfolio.com, which broke the story:

“Most of the officials belonged to a group of V.I.P. loan recipients known in company documents and emails as “F.O.A.’s”—Friends of Angelo, a reference to Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo. While the V.I.P. program also serviced friends and contacts of other Countrywide executives, the F.O.A.’s made up the biggest subset. According to company documents and emails, the V.I.P.’s received better deals than those available to ordinary borrowers. Home-loan customers can reduce their interest rates by paying “points”—one point equals 1 percent of the loan’s value.”

“For V.I.P.’s, Countrywide often waived at least half a point and eliminated fees amounting to hundreds of dollars for underwriting, processing and document preparation. If interest rates fell while a V.I.P. loan was pending, Countrywide provided a free ‘float-down’ to the lower rate, eschewing its usual charge of half a point. Some V.I.P.’s who bought or refinanced investment properties were often given the lower interest rate associated with primary residences.”

“Unless they asked, V.I.P. borrowers weren’t told exactly how many points were waived on their loans, the former employee says. However, they were typically assured that they were receiving the ‘Friends of Angelo’ discount, and that Mozilo had personally priced their loans.

“The V.I.P. loans to public officials in a position to advance Countrywide’s interests raise legal and ethical questions. Countrywide’s ethics code bars directors, officers and employees from ‘improperly influencing the decisions of government employees or contractors by offering or promising to give money, gifts, loans, rewards, favors, or anything else of value.’ Federal employees are prohibited from receiving gifts offered because of their official position, including loans on terms not generally available to the public. Senate rules prohibit members from knowingly receiving gifts worth $100 or more in a calendar year from private entities that, like Countrywide, employ a registered lobbyist.”

So far, neither Senator Dodd nor Senator Conrad have admitted any wrongdoing, and both claim that they did nothing for Mozilo or Countrywide in return for their sweetheart deals.

Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, claims that he never inquired or even wondered whether his special status with Countrywide might be related to his position as a senator or as Banking Committee chairman.

“Well, I don’t know we did anything wrong here,” Dodd said at a press conference. “I negotiated a mortgage at a prevailing rate, a competitive rate. If anyone had said to me, ‘We’re giving you some special treatment here,’ I would have rejected it. So no, I don’t feel at this point that I have any obligation. I did what I was supposed to do. I did what millions of other people did.”

Conrad, who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, has said that he gave the money he saved on his special deal with Countrywide to charity.

We hope that Congress vigorously investigates this scandal, and that it fully exposes those who benefited from special deals with Countrywide while they were on the public payroll.