Orlando Foreclosure Defense

“Grab life by the horns,” I know its an abused cliché and whenever you hear it you roll your eyes, but there is solid logic behind the saying. We should all manage our lives as efficiently and effectively as possible. There should be no shame in living your life like a private company, the company of you. The benefit of conducting your life in this way is being able to act coldly and calculatingly, with the bottom line always in mind.

This mentality has served thousands of corporations well, and has allowed them the flexibility to get out of poor business deals without feeling bad about it or without any sort of social stigma. So why is the government trying to legislate a double standard between corporations who can strategically default without any recourse and private individuals who they feel shouldn’t be able to without penalties.

The House of Representatives recently passed a measure that would give the Federal Housing Administration the flexibility to shore up its finances by barring government backed loans for borrowers who had strategically defaulted. This measure still has to pass the Senate and many feel that even if that were to happen it would be unenforceable. However, it is troubling to see that congress would be willing to go to such lengths to punish private individuals when no such course of action has been taken against big businesses.

This sort of double standard is yet another example of how strategic defaulters are being demonized for doing something that banks and corporations have been doing for years. There are no punishments for these banks and corporations; congress has not made any attempts to deny these companies tax deductions or bailout money for strategically defaulting. So why should private individuals be treated differently?

Individuals should be afforded every benefit that a company has when it comes to strategic defaults, and should thus be free to execute their personal finances in a way that benefits them the most. Punishing strategic defaulters for making economically sound decisions makes no sense.

Public perception can be a hard thing to break, once a popular view is established the public is typically unwillingly to change their view on this perception. Some popular ones are that, “carbs are bad”, “politicians are corrupt”, and my favorite “Revenge of the Sith is better than Return of the Jedi.” Many are comfortable with broad assessments of people and situations, and to a degree many public views have their merits.

A newer public perception deals with how many view strategic defaulters. Ask your average person about how they feel about someone who can pay their mortgage, but has decided not to, so as to save themselves money, and they wouldn’t have kind things to say about them. Certainly, many would call them cold and calculating, or that they should honor the contract that they signed because to not do so is dishonest. Simply put, there is strong negative public perception of strategic defaulters.

That perception could be ready to change, as there is new research that has gone into the motivations of strategic defaulters. The findings are surprising and show an emotional complexity that most people have not considered. The research by Brent White, an associate professor of law at the University of Arizona, has found that the decision to strategically default is mostly motivated by emotion and not from financial considerations.

He found that these borrowers, “feel great anxiety about their financial situation, are overwhelmed by a sense of hopelessness and are angry” about how the lenders are refusing to help or that the government is not taking any action. He also found that many of these people are fearful with proceeding with a strategic default because of the social stigma that attaches with those that foreclosed on, and often go to great lengths to avoid the default option.

Mr. White also found that many strategic defaulters were more likely to default if they knew someone who had already done so. Additionally, in his research Mr. White has found that many strategic defaulters feel frustrated and angry with a system that they perceive to favor those who were not responsible with their money, and feel “left out while the less deserving get help.”

Overall these strategic defualters shouldn’t be ashamed for what they are doing, often they are making a sound financial decision that is in their best interest. Large companies walk away from bad investments all the time in order to survive and make their business work, why should the individual be any different. The idea of paying full value for something that is now only half value, is absured.

The internet has proven a useful tool in unloading foreclosed property in a quicker fashion than the old way of doing things. Online bidding on foreclosed property has allowed more people to get involved in the process from the comfort of their own home. It has also expanded the audience of potential buyers from local residents to anyone who has access to the internet.

As nice as this online bidding system has been it has also opened up many pitfalls for the novice buyer. One problem in particular is that the way that the website is set up does not indicate whether they are bidding on a second lien or an ownership interest in a condo. With the bidding it can seem like the buyer is getting a great deal for an ownership interest in a condo when in fact they have spend thousands to take the place of a second lien holder, and essentially wasted their money. Their interest in the condo can be wiped out once the primary lien holder forecloses on the property.

Essentially under this bidding system that doesn’t disclose if its a secondary loan or not people are paying a premium for a worthless secondary lien. The entire listing is very deceiving in that it shows the address of the property, Google satellite views, and a property appraisal, all of which is standard and can confuse the bidder into thinking that they are bidding on the primary mortgage. This is a classic example of “buyer beware”, those bidders who head into this complex world should not do so without doing their due diligence.

The obvious solutions would be to do one of two things. First these listings could have a more thorough description of what the bidder is actually bidding on, with a detailed description of whether its a primary ownership interest that they are bidding on or a secondary lien. The second way to address this problem is to just not place secondary liens in the system to bid on. Neither is likely to happen as the Clerk of the Court is content with the current system.

The best advice for any newcomer to the foreclosure game is to do your homework when looking to bid on a property and be skeptical of sweet deals because if you are one of only a handful of people bidding on a property then chances are most people know something you don’t.

In this volatile real estate market and recession economy, many homeowners are faced with the difficult decision of choosing between filing a bankruptcy and defending a foreclosure. Unfortunately, the dominant thought among most attorneys is that bankruptcy is the proper remedy to address foreclosure. Our law firm handles both foreclosure defense and bankruptcy, so we have the benefit of seeing both sides of the coin.

For many individuals with extensive consumer debt or medical debt, as well as debt relating to real estate, bankruptcy is an option. (however, one should never forget the power of negotiating debts).

For those individuals who are mainly dealing with debt relating to their real estate holdings, it is often a poor decision to file a bankruptcy prior to defending a foreclosure.

For those individuals trying to save their homes or real property, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will do little to save a home, except briefly delay a foreclosure case. In fact, Chapter 7 is designed to liquidate debt. For those individuals considering Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they will be met with an often difficult and lengthy repayment plan. Bankruptcy judges are not endowed with the authority to modify mortgages; therefore, Chapter 13 is often not helpful to homeowners.

A clearer way to protect a home is to pursue one of the many foreclosure alternatives including loan modification, reinstatement, or refinancing. Often these alternatives take time and may take skilled legal advice. While in the process of pursuing foreclosure alternatives, property owners may be sued for foreclosure. A skilled foreclosure attorney can help defend the foreclosure and advise borrowers regarding foreclosure alternatives.

Many people are not interested in saving their homes. Perhaps they have no equity or are upside down, where they owe far more than the property is worth. Perhaps they do not have the financial means to qualify for a loan modification, reinstatement, or refinancing. Or perhaps they are simply tired of the system- they are fed up with dealing with banks. Many people fear a deficiency judgment more than anything else. A deficiency judgment may arise where a borrower’s property sells at a foreclosure auction for less than the amount that is owed on the loan. In such a scenario, the borrower could be held responsible for the difference owed or the “deficiency” amount.

While the potential for a deficiency judgment is a valid fear for homeowners, there are tools and options that will avoid a deficiency without filing bankruptcy. First, the homeowner may enter into a short sale, where the bank approves the sale of a home for less than the amount owed. In a short sale, the bank forgives the difference owed and the borrower is relieved of any liability.

Another solution to avoid a deficiency judgment is a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.” In a deed in lieu scenario, the borrower turns the deed over to the lender in lieu of foreclosure; this means that the lender promises they will not file a foreclosure or seek a deficiency judgment against the borrower. A deed in lieu avoids a deficiency judgment, without the need to file bankruptcy.

Finally, for those individuals already facing a foreclosure lawsuit, a skilled foreclosure lawyer should be able to defend foreclosure cases and negotiate a favorable “consent judgment.” In such a consent judgment, the borrower consents to the entry of a foreclosure judgment in exchange for the banks promise and guaranty to waive any deficiency against the borrower. Many of our clients want us to time the entry of such a consent judgment so that they are able to get the maximum time in their home. This arrangement affords our clients the maximum use of their property and also allows our clients the opportunity to pursue other options as they see fit, including loan modification or reinstatement. There is a great deal of value for those borrowers that choose to pursue a consent judgment- the borrower essentially walks away from the property without owing money to the lender, and without having to file a bankruptcy.

While not every homeowner may be able to pursue a loan modification, short sale, deed in lieu or consent judgment, these are excellent options to avoid debt and avoid filing a bankruptcy. Moreover, while borrowers pursue these options they are able to continue living at the property, or renting the property to tenants. This usually means that money is saved or money is earned. Finally, if these foreclosure options do not work out in the long run, bankruptcy is always a failsafe option- it can always be filed if everything else fails.

The Kramer Law Firm defends foreclosure and represents individuals in bankruptcy throughout Florida. For more information on mortgage foreclosure defense, please visit http://www.mykramerlawfirm.com/Foreclosure-Defense-Overview/Foreclosure-Defense.shtml. For information concerning bankruptcy, please visit http://www.mykramerlawfirm.com/Bankruptcy-Overview/Bankruptcy.shtml. The above article is not intended as legal advice and should not be taken as such. Always consult with an attorney of your choosing concerning any legal questions that you may have.