Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure - Do You Need Help to Walk Away?Need Help with a deed in lieu of foreclosure AKA Take this Home & Shove It! You are not alone. We thought we would add this section to the forum to assist the homeowners that have made the tough decision to walk away from their homes. This is America and you have the right to walk away from contracts and your home. The question is what implications will you suffer for saying, "Take this home and shove it, I aint paying you no more!" Find out the good, the bad and the ugly.
This is a discussion on Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws change September 30, 2009! within the Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure - Do You Need Help to Walk Away? forums, part of the Foreclosure Help category; For those of you who would like to express your opinions about Republican Jan Brewer's decision should telephone (602) 542-4331 ...
For those of you who would like to express your opinions about Republican Jan Brewer's decision should telephone (602) 542-4331. My concern is the change may seem minor but I suspect this is just the first of many changes the banks are trying to make. Nice to see the slimeball banking lobby still has friends in Arizona willing to sell out its citizens to the highest bidder.
Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws are changing effective September 30, 2009! The change is designed to limit the type of borrowers that will qualify for anti-deficiency treatment. Set forth below is a general outline of Arizona law regarding when a borrower may be subject to a deficiency action or sued on its note following a foreclosure or short sale. However, borrowers must understand that these are only general rules — every situation must be analyzed carefully based on the specific facts – consult with a professional at all times to determine your rights and obligations in connection with a foreclosure or short sale.
1. In Arizona, if a borrower fails to pay its loan, a lender can foreclose its Deed of Trust lien either judicially per A.R.S. § 33-721 et. seq., or non-judicially by conducting a trustee’s sale per A.R.S. § 33-801 et. seq.
2. If the foreclosure price does not pay a lender what it is owed, the lender may generally seek a deficiency against the borrower for the difference. However, certain states, including Arizona, have what are called anti-deficiency laws that bar a lender from seeking a deficiency in certain situations.
3. In determining if anti-deficiency rules apply, the first step is to confirm what law applies to the loan, particularly the lender’s remedies under the Promissory Note. The applicable law should NOT be assumed. Read your Promissory Note and other loan documents carefully and understand their terms.
4. Assuming Arizona law applies to the lender’s rights under the Promissory Note, Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws are found in 2 places – in A.R.S. § 33-729(A) (regarding judicial foreclosures), and A.R.S. § 33-814(G) (regarding trustee’s sales).
5. In both judicial foreclosures and trustee’s sales, anti-deficiency rules apply only if the property being foreclosed meets the following criteria: (a) 2½ acres or less; and (b) limited to and utilized as a single one-family or single two-family dwelling.
However, on July 10, 2009 Governor Brewer signed into law a change to A.R.S. § 33-814(G) which will take effect September 30, 2009. In addition to the above requirements, the trustee’s sale statute will also require that: (a) the trustor has lived in the property for at least 6 consecutive months; and (b) a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until September 30, 2009, there is NO requirement that the trustor use the property as a residence – residential investment properties satisfy the anti-deficiency criteria. Effective September 30, 2009, investment properties sold at trustee’s sale will NOT qualify for anti-deficiency treatment if the trustor has not lived in the property for at least 6 consecutive months.
Commercial properties and loans secured by residential homes being developed for sale but never used as dwellings don’t qualify for anti-deficiency treatment. In addition, a deed of trust that is a lien against more than one property will not be subject to anti-deficiency rules – the deed of trust needs to be a lien against a single trust property.
6. A.R.S. § 33-729(A) also requires that the loan be a purchase money (“PM”). However, the trustee’s sale statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(G), does NOT require that the loan be a PM loan. A PM loan doesn’t lose its PM nature when it is refinanced. However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues.
7. In a judicial foreclosure, only a PM lender on qualifying residential property is prevented from seeking a deficiency; a non-purchase money (“NPM”) lender is not – it can obtain a deficiency following a foreclosure or sue the borrower on the note.
8. In a trustee’s sale, both PM and NPM lenders that foreclose on qualifying property are prevented from seeking a deficiency and from suing directly on the note.
9. Junior liens extinguished by a 1st position foreclosure may be able to sue on the note. The issue is whether the junior loan was a PM or NPM loan – if it was a PM loan on qualifying property, the lender can NOT sue the borrower on the note following the foreclosure; if it was a NPM loan, the lender CAN sue the borrower.
10. If a lender can not seek a deficiency, then the lender can NOT waive its security and sue directly on its note. This means that a lender under a PM loan on qualifying property will NOT be able to sue the borrower on the note. This rule also applies to short sales. Note there are gray areas regarding cash out refi’s. Other Lender claims are also not barred – e.g. mortgage fraud.
11. Even if anti-deficiency rules apply, a borrower will be liable to a lender for any diminution in value of the trust property due to voluntary waste. In other words, don’t damage the property, take fixtures, A/C units, etc., or let the Property go to waste.
12. Real property taxes are NOT an owner’s personal obligation, but only a lien against the real property. However, HOA assessments ARE an owner’s personal obligation and if not paid can result in credit damage, lawsuits and other collection efforts. 13. Last, but not least, consult with qualified tax professionals BEFORE deciding to do a short sale or foreclosure. 1099 income, gains, losses and other tax consequences may result from foreclosures, short sales and loan modifications. Know what tax consequences you will face and plan accordingly. Note: This article does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship exists without a formal, written fee agreement with the author. Check with an experienced attorney to review your situation and to confirm the current state of the law – the law can change.
Marc McCain McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law mmccain@mblawaz.com (602) 604-2138 www.mccain-bursh.com
I almost had a heart attack when I first read this subject.
If I'm reading it correctly, those of us living in the homes prior to foreclosure are still protected, but those who bought a property and didn't live in it for the 6 month period are no longer protected?
How does this affect existing foreclosure proceedings? It seems ludicrous that an investment property foreclosed on September 25th is protected, but one on October 1st is not.
My attorney said that you just need to live in the home for at least 6 months during the period that you owned the home. There does not appear to be anything to indicate you had to live in the home for 6 consecutive months or it had to be your primary residence. I also suspect the burden of proof would be on the bank to prove you were not living in the home during at least 6 months while you owned the home.
Yes.. it does seem a bit arbitrary to me especially considering some people are already in the middle of the foreclosure process.
Thankfully I can discharge my deficiency in bankruptcy if needed. I just worry about those who cannot.
Well I suppose one positive effect of this is it may prevent investors from foreclosing on homes that have unsuspecting tenants in them. Definitely seems like any property with an existing NoTS on it should be grandfathered in under the old rules though.
If I understand this correctly, it will only effect home foreclosed on after Sept 30th? Is that right? What is the point of changing the laws? Is it to stop investors from taking advantage of this?
Thought I'd bump this up, now I'm a bit worried about his change? Do you have to live in your home for 6 months prior to the trustee sale, or just anytime since you've owned the home? Also if this law goes into effect Sept 30th, does that mean if your trustee sale is Sept 29th, the old law still applies? Anyone know???
Thought I'd bump this up, now I'm a bit worried about his change? Do you have to live in your home for 6 months prior to the trustee sale, or just anytime since you've owned the home? Also if this law goes into effect Sept 30th, does that mean if your trustee sale is Sept 29th, the old law still applies? Anyone know???
My attorney said that you just need to live in the home for at least 6 months during the period that you owned the home. There does not appear to be anything to indicate you had to live in the home for 6 consecutive months or it had to be your primary residence. I also suspect the burden of proof would be on the bank to prove you were not living in the home during at least 6 months while you owned the home.
I don't think this is something you need to worry about but it may be a sign of what's to come from Jan Brewer. Need to vote her out.. she's too cozy with the banking industry.
I don't think this is something you need to worry about but it may be a sign of what's to come from Jan Brewer. Need to vote her out.. she's too cozy with the banking industry.
Yes. She was the Secty of State. She's a Palinite on social issues and a gun nut IMO. She wants everyone packin heat, everywhere. I don't mean to offend any gun owners. I'm not an "anti-gun" type. I understand the need for good citizens to have the legal right to protect themselves and their families or to hunt (even though I'm not a proponent of hunting). I just think these nutty politicians should get a clue about how to truly make the lives of their constituents better by actually hunkering down and doing some REAL work for a change. All they do is rehash all the same, ole, tired issues, over and over and over again. Maybe she could actually create some jobs in AZ instead of f'king w/ distressed homeowners or wasting all her f'king time protecting all the whiner gun nuts. Did Jesus pack heat? She self-identifies as a Christian .
Yes. She was the Secty of State. She's a Palinite on social issues and a gun nut IMO. She wants everyone packin heat, everywhere. I don't mean to offend any gun owners. I'm not an "anti-gun" type. I understand the need for good citizens to have the legal right to protect themselves and their families or to hunt (even though I'm not a proponent of hunting). I just think these nutty politicians should get a clue about how to truly make the lives of their constituents better by actually hunkering down and doing some REAL work for a change. All they do is rehash all the same, ole, tired issues, over and over and over again. Maybe she could actually create some jobs in AZ instead of f'king w/ distressed homeowners or wasting all her f'king time protecting all the whiner gun nuts. Did Jesus pack heat? She self-identifies as a Christian .
Hey Irish
Was watching TV last night with BF and they were showing some really nasty neighborhood and out of the blue he says "Wouldn't want to go in there unless you were packin". (I said packin' what, a bag?) I cracked up at his usage because he never ever even shot a gun. lol Guess he's watching too much TV........
Hey Irish Was watching TV last night with BF and they were showing some really nasty neighborhood and out of the blue he says "Wouldn't want to go in there unless you were packin". (I said packin' what, a bag?) I cracked up at his usage because he never ever even shot a gun. lol Guess he's watching too much TV........
Too funny ! All those Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson movies ... Don't ya miss all those manly men from the ole days ????? None of this Brad Pitt, it's cool to look like a smelly bum, can't talk intelligibly to save my life, pothead punk types that Hollywood pumps out today ! I just loved Charles Bronson's stoic, quiet, don't f'k w/ me face !!!! And, how he loved his wife Jill Ireland more than life itself ... she was so pretty and he was so f'ked up looking, but such a great Hollywood couple ! I miss old Hollywood. We need some good heroes again, during these tough times ... No?
Too funny ! All those Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson movies ... Don't ya miss all those manly men from the ole days ????? None of this Brad Pitt, it's cool to look like a smelly bum, can't talk intelligibly to save my life, pothead punk types that Hollywood pumps out today ! I just loved Charles Bronson's stoic, quiet, don't f'k w/ me face !!!! And, how he loved his wife Jill Ireland more than life itself ... she was so pretty and he was so f'ked up looking, but such a great Hollywood couple ! I miss old Hollywood. We need some good heroes again, during these tough times ... No?
Farrah Fawcet and Ryan O'Neal, now there was a real love story..........
A new law passed by the Arizona Legislature that makes homeowners liable for tens of thousands of dollars on homes lost to foreclosure is now the focus of an intense repeal battle.
An amendment to the state's foreclosure laws, passed in the recent legislative session, was designed to protect small [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]community [COLOR=green !important]banks[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] from people buying speculative new homes they can't sell for a profit.
But the impact of the change is much larger. It makes some homeowners in foreclosure liable for the difference between their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]mortgage[/COLOR][/COLOR] and what their lender can recoup from reselling the house. In the current housing market, the difference is generally more than $100,000 on the typical Valley foreclosure. 27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=6 height=215 PPsC2="0">
Real-estate lobbyists and attorneys for homeowners are working to have the law repealed before the Legislature adjourns after completing its work on the [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]budget[/COLOR][/COLOR]. Banks are pushing hard to keep the amendment in place. If the new rules stand, they go into effect Sept. 30.
The new law would affect any Arizona homeowner in foreclosure who has not lived in the home for six straight months. This might include landlords, second-home owners and investors who bought homes hoping for quick resales and big profits. Once the home is sold in foreclosure, the homeowner would have to pay back the remaining value of the loan, minus the proceeds from the foreclosure sale. Currently, Arizona homeowners, including investors, who lose a house to foreclosure take a big hit on their credit scores but aren't usually required to pay back lenders.
The new law isn't retroactive, but those facing foreclosure now could be affected if the lender doesn't foreclose and take back the home until after Sept. 30. Under the new law, lenders will be able to garnish wages and go after other assets to recover the money.
In metropolitan Phoenix, where home values have dropped 45 percent and foreclosures are at record highs, that amounts to millions of dollars.
"This won't just impact investors. This law will hurt retirees who live in Arizona less than half of the year, or people from the Valley who own second homes up north," said Tom Farley, chief executive of the Arizona Realtors Association. "Arizona is No. 2 for foreclosures now. If this law isn't changed, the state could lead the nation for bankruptcies next year."
Opponents of the new law say it will force homeowners to file for bankruptcy to protect their assets from lenders.
They also believe it will encourage more lenders to foreclose instead of trying to work out loan-modification deals with borrowers.
Some housing market watchers say the change could also deter investment in the state's housing market, which would be a blow to the economy.
State Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott, backed the legislation, SB 1271. He said in June testimony that the changes to the anti-deficiency statute are to help community banks that lend to investors hiding behind the current laws.
Pierce described scenarios in which investors had speculative homes built but couldn't sell them and then camped out in them for a few days to claim them as primary residences so they wouldn't be liable for the lender's losses.
Under current Arizona foreclosure law, a homeowner doesn't have to live in a home for a certain amount of time to claim it as a primary residence. In most cases, if homeowners can prove they receive mail at a residence, it's enough proof of their residency.
Who is protected
The amendment was made to the state's anti-deficiency law, passed in the mid-1980s, which kept lenders from recovering anything more than the home on a typical residential foreclosure. About two dozen states have anti-deficiency laws. Some small speculators have been using the anti-deficiency law to protect their other assets.
Under the new law, a homeowner must live in a house for six consecutive months to establish residency and to be covered by the anti-deficiency law.
Homeowners who lose a home to foreclosure, and who fail to meet the six-month residency requirement, will be liable for the difference between the foreclosure sale price and the [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]original [COLOR=green !important]loan[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].
For example, if a lender forecloses on a home with a $400,000 mortgage balance and can only resell the home for $200,000, then the [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]borrower[/COLOR][/COLOR] still will owe the lender $200,000.
Opponents argue that while the new law may have been aimed at people having speculative homes built in small communities, it will have many unintended victims. Among them: people who bought second or retirement homes in Arizona and are struggling now because of the [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]recession[/COLOR][/COLOR]. Most of those people will fall behind on second-home mortgages before losing their primary residence. But if they owe too much on their second homes, lenders could go after their primary homes and all other assets to recoup the loss.
"There won't be a lot of sympathy for the big investors, but the problem becomes legally working out who is an investor," said Jay Butler, director of Realty Studies at Arizona State University.
Butler said he was at a meeting last week with real-estate agents who were "shocked" the legislation passed. "Lenders that shouldn't have made the loans to investors in the first place," Butler said, "are trying to cover up their own mistakes with this new law."
Investors at risk
Many blame investors for the Valley's housing boom that led to the current crash.
During 2005, investors were behind almost 40 percent of all of metro Phoenix's home sales. Foreclosures started to climb in 2007 when investors couldn't sell the houses for a profit and let them go into foreclosure.
"There are investors and speculators taking advantage of the (anti-deficiency) statutes," said Tanya Wheeless, president of the Arizona Bankers Association. "When investors were making lots of money flipping houses, they never called up their lender and offered to split the profits. Now, investors are losing money and trying to hide from their responsibility of the losses."
Opponents say the new law won't affect the sophisticated investors who buy homes through limited liability partnerships that protect their personal assets.
Farley of the Arizona Realtors Association admits the broader impact of the legislation was a surprise. "If you have a second home in Flagstaff," he said, "and fall behind on payments because your spouse has lost their job, lenders can foreclose and garnish your wages and put liens on your bank accounts and your primary home.
"What about parents who buy homes for their children to live in while going to college? If something happens to them in this tough economy, they could lose both their homes. And really, how many second-home owners can show they have lived in their vacation home six months straight?"
Last-minute lobbying
Real-estate lobbyists are working overtime to have the law killed before the Sept. 30 deadline.
A new bill must be written that repeals or reverses SB 1271. However, the Legislature is in a special session, and Gov. Jan Brewer would have to amend the purpose of the special budget session to hear the new legislation. She has amended the session once so far to include renewable-energy credits.
The Realtors Association asked Brewer last week to amend the current session and is looking for a legislator to back a bill to kill the changes to the anti-deficiency law.
If that plan doesn't work, the new rules could not be changed until next year's session.
Wheeless said she's surprised so many groups are shocked by the new rules, because SB 1271 went through full hearings.
"The legislation was fully vetted and out in the open for those who opposed it to weigh in," she said. "Our intent is to protect homeowners who live in their residences."
Arizona attorneys are already receiving calls from lenders that want to know about the new law.
"I got a call from an out-of-state lender that is considering holding off on a foreclosure until after September 30," said Phoenix real-estate attorney Marc McCain. "The lender thinks this investor has the income to pay the mortgage but is walking away from a home because he can't sell it and just doesn't want to keep paying for it."
The new law could also lead to costly lawsuits.
"If the legislation isn't repealed, it will probably end up being hashed out in the courts between lenders and borrowers," Butler said. "The typical homeowner probably doesn't have the money to fight a big lender, particularly if they are already facing foreclosure."
sorry it's a little choppy, it didn't quite cut and paste correctly, hopefully you all will get the gist of what is being said....
If this NEW Law is NOT repealed, we will see lose mitigated settlements at some % level of the outstanding balances. These bank are forcing this issue, due to the millions in losses and are willing to spend more to prove a point. "20% of something, is better then 100% of nothing"
Litigation on these lawsuits will bring out the government's lack of over site, and the reduced lending guidelines, along with many other factors that helped to propel us into our current housing condition. I believe we will now be forced into prolonged economic struggle due to this new law. We will see an unprecedented level of BK filings, and other collectible actions, all of which will hinder our recovery.
The new revised ARS 33-814 does state that the home must be lived in "by the "trustor/borrower" for 6 consecutive months before the sale or FC.
I have mixed feelings on the topic. On one hand the reason we're in this mess is because speculators bought up 20-30 houses at a time then dumped them on the market without recourse when they could not sell them for a profit. They should have just amended the law so anyone who owns more than 3 homes looses their recourse status.
Anyway.. I doubt the law will be repealed. Our republicans are too easily bought and the banking industry has money to 'invest' in making sure this law stays on the books. I'll call on Monday to complain though..
[quote=Ron1234;106473]The new revised ARS 33-814 does state that the home must be lived in "by the "trustor/borrower" for 6 consecutive months before the sale or FC.
What does this mean? Do you have to live in the house for 6 months leading up till the foreclosure, or just 6 months since owning the house???
I've already sent my letter to Gov. Brewer, I can post her address if others would like to write her about repealing this new law as well, but am I allowed to post that on this site???
More info I found, this is a letter to a senator in AZ:
Senator Allen:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday and hearing my concerns over the passage of SB 1271. I want to stress that, although I support the AAR’s call for a repeal of the statute, I am not currently working on behalf of any one group or association. My concerns are based solely on what I am certain was an incorrect understanding of Arizona law and what I believe is an exaggerated problem of spec builder abuse of existing law (in the overall picture).
In addition, there appears to have been little to no discussion of the many serious consequences this legislation will have on thousands of Arizona property owners. These include garnishment of assets and wages, forced bankruptcies and cancelled debt taxes that could be substantial. All of these issues do not bode well for the average Arizonan at a time when they are struggling to stay afloat. For many people, this bill will either take whatever funds they have left, or push them into bankruptcy and neither result is good for Arizona’s economy.
Moreover, the wording of the statute and each change to the statute will create tremendous ambiguity in the courts and force potentially thousands of helpless property owners to litigate deficiency lawsuits against lenders and their counsel. In such litigation, the owner will now have the burden to establish the requirement that the property was lived in for 6 or more months. Since many lenders have no idea of how the property has been used, homeowners will face “fishing” lawsuits where lenders force them to satisfy their burden of proof in court or face a judgment – even if they in fact lived in the property for countless years. This is a David vs. Goliath scenario waiting to happen.
The certificate of occupancy (C of O) requirement is simply bad law and does not further the intent behind the change to the law. As I have indicated in my prior correspondence, not all cities issue C of O’s, some cities (like Phoenix) only started issuing them in more modern times, and even if a C of O can be obtained where one was not issued, this will tax local governments and their building departments at a time when resources are scarce, and can result in inspections of property and required upgrades to bring a property current (in order to get a C of O).
If this law is not repealed, it will most certainly result in a constitutional challenge by one or more consumer groups. The law was written to have retroactive effect – meaning it will be used against borrowers that entered into contracts long before the law was changed, and before foreclosure proceedings even commenced. In short, it will be used in an effort to change the rules governing the loan agreement and the borrower’s obligations thereunder after the contractual obligations were entered into. Given the vagueness in the law, the impact it will have on existing contractual rights and obligations, the problems with the C of O requirement, and the fact that the premise of the law was flawed, I expect a court to determine the law to be unconstitutional as written.
I am receiving numerous calls from owners and lenders asking about the new law. So far, the lenders I have spoken with are not calling about spec builders in default, but investors of qualifying residential property that will no longer get anti-deficiency treatment if the change in the law stands (despite the fact that the property has been used as a dwelling, albeit perhaps not by the borrower). Since the premise for the need to change the law was incorrect (which it most certainly was), the resulting legislation was inherently flawed. If lenders wanted to change the law to their benefit, they should have done so by presenting an accurate account of the law and with ALL impacts properly discussed and analyzed. I urge you to do what is necessary to repeal this law and bring the lenders and their lobby back to the table during the next normal legislative session to have a well rounded and accurate discussion of the issues at play.
A Few Questions that need to be addressed:
Going forward, it will be interesting to see how lenders act in response to the change and how courts will interpret the new law. Below is a sample of the issues and potential gray areas the new law raises:
1. Does use by the trustor as a dwelling mean the trustor had to live in the property, or merely put it to use by someone as a dwelling — e.g., a renter (note the legislative summary clearly states the intent was that the trustor had to live in the property but this is NOT how the statute is worded – says the trustor must utilize the dwelling for 6 or more consecutive months)?
2. Can a borrower use (or live in) more than 1 property as a dwelling at the same time — for instance a vacation home and a main residence?
3. How will a court interpret the 6 consecutive month requirement? if a borrower that has lived in a home for 3 months goes on an extended vacation, does that stop the clock on the 6 month requirement and require that the borrower use or live in the home for 6 months or more upon return? what about extended illnesses or out of state work assignments?
4. Will the new law be applied retroactively to all loans made before the September 30, 2009 effective date but that result in a foreclosure after such date?
5. Will courts strictly construe the certificate of occupancy requirement or will evidence establishing construction was completed and all approvals and inspections obtained from the governing authorities be sufficient?
6. Can an entity such as a LLC or corporation that owns a home satisfy the requirement that the home be used by or lived in by the trustor — especially where the trustor under the Deed of Trust is the LLC or other entity?
Needless to say this really ticks me off, this is total misrepresentation, under the guise of getting at the investors and as many of the rest of us as they can. Cert of occupancy?? Nor do we know how we can show proof of residency for 6 months, no clarification, just wheeling and dealing bankers. I NEVER in my life would consider bankruptcy but if they try any foolishness with me, I'll do just that if I have to. The number of people caught in this thing could be huge...I sure hope it is repealed or fixed......
Arizona Senator calls for repeal of his foreclosure bill
Arizona Sen. Steve Pierce, R, is calling for a repeal of the controversial foreclosure legislation that he sponsored - SB 1271.
The legislation makes many homeowners in foreclosure liable to lenders for the difference between their mortgage and what a lender can recoup from selling the home. In the Valley, home prices are down 45 percent so many homeowners could be liable for $100,000 or more. SB 1271 allows lenders to after borrowers other properties, retirement accounts and earnings if they default on a mortgage and haven't lived in the home for six straight months.
According to an email update from the Arizona Association of Realtors sent out to this thousands of members late this morning, said Pierce “feels the bill needs to be fixed due to the unforeseen and unintended consequences of the legislation. He has asked the Legislature and the Governor's office to repeal the bill so that legislators and industry stakeholder groups can work on a new bill to accomplish the original objective of 1271- to help small community banks in Arizona.”
In a release from the State Captiol Pierce said: “Very simply, a bill that was intended to protect community banks, has some serious flaws in it and it should be repealed before it takes effect. We need to fix this bill. I have visited with the Governor and numerous parties involved and they will be collaborating on how to correct the issue immediately.”
Opponents of the new law say lenders are already protected from most speculator defaults by Arizona case law.
Pierce, representatives from the real estate industry and the Governors office met yesterday morning to discuss SB 1271.
Last week, Arizona Realtors Association CEO Tom Farley asked Gov. Jan Brewer to amend the current special budget session to hear legislation to repeal SB 1271. If it isn’t repealed in the current session, the bill becomes law on Sept. 30th.
Valley real estate attorneys say they are already receiving calls from out-of-state lenders asking about the legislation and if it will help them recoup losses on foreclosures. Lenders have said they will hold off on some foreclosures until after Sept. 30th to go after borrowers’ other assets.
Farley said there’s talk today that something could be tacked onto the budget legislation to recall SB 1271 so the session wouldn’t have to be amended
I have missed three payments and I have received a Notice of Intent to Accelerate letter from B of A stating that if I do not bring my account current by August 16th, they would start the foreclosure procedure. I want to walk away because I am 50% underwater but I do not know if I am still protected under the new anti-deficiency law that will change on September 30th. This is my primary residence and I have lived in it for the past 3 years without refinancing. So I have 2 questions:
1. Can the bank still pursue a deficiency judgement?
2. Where can I get a Certificate of Occupancy? The house was built in 2002 and when I bought the house in 2006 I don't remember getting one from the previous owner. Do I need to get one to be covered or the fact that I have lived in it for at least 6 consecutive months shoud do it? Thanks.
2. Where can I get a Certificate of Occupancy? The house was built in 2002 and when I bought the house in 2006 I don't remember getting one from the previous owner. Do I need to get one to be covered or the fact that I have lived in it for at least 6 consecutive months shoud do it? Thanks.
Your bank would not have allowed you to purchase the house with a COO unless you received a 'land only' loan or 'construction loan' (both carry a higher interest rate). The law is targeted at houses that were never finished or investors who buy land, try to erect a house and run out of money during construction then complain they are covered by anti-deficiency because a house occupies the land.
Your bank would not have allowed you to purchase the house with a COO unless you received a 'land only' loan or 'construction loan' (both carry a higher interest rate). The law is targeted at houses that were never finished or investors who buy land, try to erect a house and run out of money during construction then complain they are covered by anti-deficiency because a house occupies the land.
So if the bank is following a deficiency then I should not worry about having a COO in my posession? Who should have the COO for my house then? The builder? Should I be asking them for a copy or what would you advice me to do? Thanks.
Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws change September 30, 2009! 
She wants everyone packin heat, everywhere. I don't mean to offend any gun owners. I'm not an "anti-gun" type. I understand the need for good citizens to have the legal right to protect themselves and their families or to hunt (even though I'm not a proponent of hunting). I just think these nutty politicians should get a clue about how to truly make the lives of their constituents better by actually hunkering down and doing some REAL work for a change. All they do is rehash all the same, ole, tired issues, over and over and over again. Maybe she could actually create some jobs in AZ instead of f'king w/ distressed homeowners or wasting all her f'king time protecting all the whiner gun nuts. Did Jesus pack heat? She self-identifies as a Christian 
. 
No? 
Linear Mode
