For interested legal observers of the foreclosure crisis, it really doesn’t get any better than this.

Supplemental and amicus curie legal briefs have been filed in much awaited case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, and they make for great reading. The briefs were filed in response to the SJC’s concern, mid-appeal, over whether an adverse ruling against foreclosing lenders will have a disastrous impact on foreclosure titles and, if so, whether its ruling should be applied prospectively rather than retroactively. Click here for our past posts on the case.

Notably, the Federal Housing Finance Association, the congressional conservator of the bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed a rare amicus brief and laid a shot across the SJC’s bow. It suggested that the congressional bailout law would trump an adverse decision by the SJC to the extent that it interfered with Fannie and Freddie’s mission to secure the health of U.S. secondary mortgage market. This is the first time that I’m aware of the federal agency intervening in a particular foreclosure case.

Not surprisingly, Fannie Mae, FHFA, and REBA (Real Estate Bar Ass’n) and the other industry groups argue against a retroactive application of an adverse ruling, claiming that it would have a disastrous effect on homeowners with foreclosures in their titles.

Eaton (which cited thid Blog), the legal services groups and foreclosure defense groups say that the sky will not fall down if the unity rule is applied retroactively; indeed, foreclosures in Mass. have increased post-Ibanez. They also argue that the law is the law, and it’s the lenders fault for creating a securitization scheme in violation of the law, so they should have to deal with the repercussions.

I have also attached REBA’s and Attorney Glenn Russell’s (lead counsel in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez) submissions on the recent Land Court ruling in Wells Fargo v. McKenna where the Land Court Judge Gordon Piper held that Massachusetts does not require the unity rule.

A final decision is expected in February or March.

Click here for the particular brief:

Real Estate Bar Ass’n (REBA) Brief      REBA Letter re. McKenna case

Land Title Ass’n Brief

WilmerHale Legal Services Brief

Appellee Henrietta Eaton Brief (citing this Blog)

Fannie Mae Brief

Federal Housing Finance Ass’n Brief

Ablitt Schofield PC Foreclosure Law Firm Brief

McDonnell Property Analytics Brief

Professor Adam Levitin Brief

National Foreclosure Defense Group Brief

Attorney Glenn Russell Foreclosure Defense Brief (Part 1 and Part 2)

______________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

The Offer to Purchase Has Become Much More Important

With a glut of distressed property still on the market and lenders realizing foreclosures aren’t very cost-effective, analysts are predicting a healthy spike in short sales for 2012. Short sales are quite unique in terms of deal dynamics, and should be handled differently than the typical transaction.

Massachusetts real estate attorneys and Realtors, however, are set in their ways when it comes to real estate contracts. For decades, we’ve been using the standard form Offer to Purchase and Purchase and Sale Agreement from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board or some variation thereof. We have also developed a predictable process in which the parties sign the Offer, conduct property inspections, sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement, obtain financing, order title, and get to closing.

With the recent proliferation of short sales, we have had to … yes, that dreaded word, CHANGE, the way we do things. Some agents and attorneys still do things the “old way” for short sale transactions, but they are doing themselves and their clients a disservice by doing so.

In this post, I will outline –  and explain — the “newer and better” way of handling the legal contracts in a Massachusetts short sale transaction.

The Offer to Purchase: Now The Operative Contract Document

We are seeing a shift to making the offer the operative contract in a Massachusetts short sale transaction. And for good reason. A short sale, by definition, is subject to a critical contingency: obtaining short sale approval from the seller’s lender(s). No short sale approval, no deal. Experienced short sale attorneys and real estate agents (and their clients) don’t want to spend the time and incur the expense of drafting a comprehensive (and contingent) purchase and sale contract when there is no guaranty of getting short sale approval. Furthermore, short sale lenders will accept a signed offer from the buyer during the approval process.

When we were first doing short sales, there were several instances where we drafted up purchase and sale agreements and then the short sale approval fell through. We had to charge the client for the drafting work or eat the cost. No one was happy.

The better way has proven to be the following:

• Build all contingencies into the Offer to Purchase, namely, Short Sale Approval and Financing (we’ll talk about home inspections later)
• Use a standard rider with short sale contingency language, with a deficiency waiver
• Seller to use best efforts in obtaining short sale approval
• Buyer agrees to be bound for set approval period  (60-90 days) in exchange for seller taking property off the market and not accepting back up offers. Negotiate deposit amount, usually 1% of purchase price. Buyer will obtain his financing and loan commitment during this approval period.
• Negotiate extension rights, with corresponding protection for Buyer’s financing/rate lock
• Upon short sale approval, purchase and sale agreement is signed within 5-7 days and full 5% deposit made
• Closing within 30 days of short sale approval. (Most short sale approvals are only good for 30 days)
• Waiver of home inspection or inspection prior to offer acceptance. Sellers should never agree to allow a home inspection contingency giving the Buyer a right to terminate. If the buyer doesn’t want to pay for an inspection up front, he is not a serious short sale buyer.

Change Is Hard…

I recognize that this is a departure from the “normal” way we document residential real estate contracts, but trust me, it’s a better way, and will actually decrease the time it will take to obtain short sale approval, because the parties are not waiting around for the P&S to be negotiated and signed and the buyer (and his attorney) don’t have to do unnecessary work.

Another important piece here is that the Buyer must get his financing in order, ready to go by the time short sale approval comes through. Lenders must recognize the unique short sale process and work with borrowers to get a firm loan commitment issued timely. Also, there’s no need for a lender to insist that the borrower have a signed purchase and sale agreement for underwriting approval. Under the process that I’ve outlined and under established Massachusetts case-law (McCarthy v. Tobin), the Offer is a legal and binding contract for the sale of the subject property and is sufficient for underwriting purposes. If it’s ok for the short sale lender, it should be ok for the buyer’s lender.

Help Is An Email Away

If you are a Realtor and need some guidance on the new Short Sale Offer, email me here and I will send you the form Rider. Also, if you need a referral for an excellent short sale negotiator, I highly recommend Andrew Coppo at Greater Boston Short Sales LLC.

__________________________________________________________

Richard Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney. For more information, please contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup or 508-620-5352.

The Supreme Judicial Court has just issued an unusual order in the very important Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association case, indicating its deep concern over whether an adverse ruling against foreclosing lenders will have a disastrous impact on foreclosure titles and, if so, whether its ruling should be applied prospectively rather than retroactively. The Court is seeking supplemental briefing and friend-of-the-court briefs on these decisive issues. A final decision is expected in February or March.

As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the controversial question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. This is the essence of the “produce the note” defense. In a securitized mortgage pool, in which over 60% of all U.S. mortgage are part, the note and mortgage are separated between securitized trusts, mortgage services or Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS).

If the SJC rules against lenders, it could render the vast majority of securitized mortgage foreclosures defective, thereby creating mass chaos in the Massachusetts land recording and title community. If you thought U.S. Bank v. Ibanez was bad, Eaton v. FNMA could be the Nuclear Option.

The text of the order is as follows:

ORDER :Having heard oral argument and considered the written submissions of the parties and the various amici curiae, the court hereby invites supplemental briefing on the points described below. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or before January 23, 2012. 1. It has been claimed that requiring a unity of the mortgage and the underlying promissory note, in order for there to be a valid foreclosure, would cloud any title that has a foreclosure in the chain of title, regardless of how long ago the foreclosure occurred. The parties are invited to address whether they believe that such a requirement would have such an effect, and if so, what legal or practical measures exist that might limit the consequences of such a requirement. 2. It also has been suggested that, if the court were to hold that unity of the mortgage and note is required under existing law, the court’s holding should be applied prospectively only. The parties are invited to indicate on what authority they believe (or do not believe) the court could make such a holding prospective only.

Reading into this order, perhaps a majority of the justices are already leaning towards ruling against the lenders and want to limit the potentially disastrous effect it could have on existing titles and pending and future foreclosures. Interestingly, lenders in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case asked the SJC to apply its ruling prospectively, but it declined, thereby leaving hundreds to thousands of property owners and title insurers to clean up toxic foreclosure titles.

In my opinion, an adverse ruling against lenders in Eaton could be the apocalyptic scenario, rendering open to challenge any title with a previous foreclosure in it and inserting a fatal wedge into the current securitized mortgage system. Hopefully this time around the Court is more sensitive to how its ruling will impact the real estate community. It will be interesting to see how this case continues to develop. We will continue to monitor it.

_______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

It’s time again for our annual review of highlights in Massachusetts Real Estate Law for the past year. It’s been a very busy year. From the foreclosure fallout, to Occupy Boston, to the new homestead law, there’s been lots to report on. We’ll start in order of importance this year.

SJC Decides Controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Case

2011 started off with a bang with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the widely publicized foreclosure case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. Our coverage of the case can be read here and here. The Court’s ruling was rather elementary: you need to own the mortgage before you can foreclose. But it’s become much more complicated with the proliferation of securitized mortgages bought and sold numerous times on Wall Street. The Court held that the common industry practice of assigning a mortgage “in blank” — meaning without specifying to whom the mortgage would be assigned until after the fact — does not constitute a proper assignment, at least in Massachusetts. The ruling left many innocent homeowners and title insurance companies scrambling to deal with titles rendered defective due to the ruling. The fallout continues to this day with no resolution by lawmakers.

AG Coakley Sues Major Banks For Foreclosure Fraud

2011 was certainly the Year of Foreclosure Fallout. Earlier in December, Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” The case remains pending.

Massachusetts Real Estate Attorneys Win Legal Victory Ensuring Their Place At Closing Table

In the closely watched case of Real Estate Bar Association (REBA) v. National Estate Information Services (NREIS), Massachusetts real estate attorneys won a huge legal victory reaffirming their long-standing role to oversee the closing process and conduct closings in Massachusetts. The case pitted Mass. attorneys vs. out of state notary companies who were trying to conduct notary real estate closings without trained attorneys. Siding with the consumer, the court required “not only the presence but the substantive participation of an attorney on behalf of the mortgage lender.”

New Homestead Law

This year saw the passing of the long-awaited comprehensive revision to our outdated Homestead Act. Here is a summary:

• All Massachusetts homeowners receive an automatic homestead exemption of $125,000 for protection against certain creditor claims on their principal residence without having to do anything.
• All Mass. residents are eligible for a $500,000 “declared homestead exemption” by filing a declaration of homestead at the registry of deeds. For married couples, both spouses will now have to sign the form–which is a change from prior practice.
• Homesteads are now available on 2-4 family homes, and for homes in trust.
• The existing “elderly and disabled” homestead will remain available at $500,000.
• If you have a homestead as a single person, and get married, the homestead automatically protects your new spouse. Homesteads now pass on to the surviving spouse and children who live in the home.
• You do not have to re-file a homestead after a refinance.

More Foreclosure Fallout With Bevilacqua and Eaton Cases

The U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case was the start, but certainly not the ending of the foreclosure fallout. The case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez considered property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures. The ruling with a mix of good and bad news. The bad news was that victims of defective foreclosure titles could not seek redress through the Land Court “quiet title” procedure. The good news was that the court left open whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together (like Humpty-Dumpty) and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles.

Eaton v. Fannie Mae is the next foreclosure case awaiting final decision. As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the very important question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Using the “produce the note” defense which has been gaining steam across across the country, the borrower, Ms. Eaton, was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting her eviction by a foreclosing lender. The SJC heard arguments in the fall and is expected to issue a final ruling early in 2012. A ruling against lenders would be as big, or even bigger, than the Ibanez case.

Lastly, another case to watch for in 2012 is HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt which will decide whether a lender holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process. The case is should be ready for oral argument in late winter, early spring 2012.

Judge Evicts Occupy Boston Protesters

What would 2011 be without a homage to the Occupy Movement! Citing property and trespass law from centuries ago, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Frances A. McIntyre issuing a ruling clearing the way for the eviction of the Occupy Boston protest which has taken over Dewey Square in downtown Boston. Our coverage of the ruling is here.

Well, that’s it for a very busy year 2011 in Massachusetts real estate law! The year 2012 is expected to be just as busy, and of course, we’ll be on top of all the breaking news here on the Blog.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

Tireless Determination The Key To Massachusetts Short Sale Success

What Is A Short Sale?

A short sale is special type of real estate transaction between a homeowner, his mortgage holder(s), and a third party buyer where the property owner’s mortgage balance exceeds the market value of the property — known as being “under water.” In a short sale, the homeowner’s mortgage lender agrees to accept less than what is owed on the outstanding mortgage, thereby being left “short.” Ideally, the lender will agree to release out the entire debt including any deficiency between the sales price and mortgage balance. This is called a deficiency waiver and most skilled short sale negotiators will insist on this.

The entire process can be extremely time consuming and typically requires a lengthy negotiation with the lender by a skilled Massachusetts short sale attorney or lawyer. Banks and loan servicers now realize that short sales are a preferred method to dispose of distressed properties as they are far less expensive than foreclosure. Short sales are generally reserved for homeowners who do not qualify for a loan modification.

Do I Qualify For A Short Sale?

Homeowners can qualify for short sale approval by proving a recognized involuntary financial hardship. An involuntary financial hardship is some event, beyond the homeowner’s control, that caused the mortgage payments to become unaffordable, even if only temporarily. Acceptable hardships typically include:

• Loss of a employment
• Curtailment of income
• Increased mortgage payment or liabilities
• Loss of tenant(s)
• Divorce or Separation
• Catastrophic medical event
• Job relocation
• Military service; or
• Death in the family

Most lenders distinguish between someone who lost their job and someone who voluntarily quit their job. Thus, unless you are able to prove that you were forced to leave your job, or asked by your employer to take a significant pay cut, a change of employment status may not automatically qualify you for a short sale. Furthermore, many homeowners have suffered multiple hardships, and it can be difficult deciding which hardship you should present to your lender when requesting a short sale. 

The Hardship Letter

As a part of the short sale application process, a skilled Massachusetts short sale lawyer will draft a hardship letter detailing why you are no longer able to make mortgage payments on your home and why you qualify for a short sale. The hardship letter can be one of the most important aspects of the short sale process and should be as detailed as possible, telling a compelling story about the applicant’s individual circumstances.

As part of the short sale hardship package, the short sale applicant will also submit the following:

• Third party authorization (allowing your lawyer and/or realtor to communicate with your lender)
• Financial worksheet (breakdown of monthly expenses and income)
• Hardship letter (why you could pay your mortgage before and why you cannot now)
• Recent pay-stubs
• Recent Bank statements
• Offer to Purchase
  
• MLS listing showing the market history of your property
• Last 2 Years Federal Tax Returns

How Long Does Short Sale Approval Take?

Depending on who your lender is and how many loans you have, short sale approve can take on average between 60 – 120 days, depending on the particular lender and complexity of the case. If the lender makes a counter offer on the purchase price or if there are multiple mortgages and liens against the property, the process will take longer. One of the keys is to submit requested documentation as fast as possible, and to stay on the lender, with frequent requests for status updates. That’s what separates a skilled short sale attorney from the run-of-the-mill negotiators who’ll let your file languish.

Credit and Legal Ramifications

A short sale is far less damaging to your credit and ability to secure a mortgage down the road than a foreclosure or bankruptcy, although it does have some impact.

Do I Need A Short Sale Attorney?

Only if you want to maximize your chances of getting short sale approved, obtain approval in the fastest manner possible, and protect your legal rights and future credit history at the same time! There are real estate agents and short sale firms advertising themselves as short sale negotiators — and some are really good — however, they are not licensed to provide legal or tax advice, and you must seek that advice elsewhere at additional cost. With an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney, the applicant can “kill two birds with one stone,” by having the attorney take over the entire short sale approval process. While negotiating with your lender, the short sale attorney can simultaneously perform all necessary short sale legal work, including reviewing and drafting the offer to purchase, short sale approval letter and purchase and sale agreement with short sale addendum/riders. The cost is relatively the same across the board, and some of the fees may be paid by the lender, depending on who it is.

We highly recommend Andrew Coppo at Greater Boston Short Sales LLC, an experienced and successful short sale negotiator. Andrew writes all about Massachusetts short sales on his fantastic blog, The Closing Table.

______________________________________________________________

Richard Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney. For more information, please contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup or 508-620-5352.

Court May Decide Lenders’ Standing In All Foreclosure Cases Involving Securitized Mortgages

With all the hoopla yesterday surrounding Attorney General Martha Coakley’s monumental lawsuit against the big banks over foreclosure practices, the Supreme Judicial Court on November 29, 2011 quietly agreed to hear an appeal over whether a lender holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process.

The case is HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt. The docket can be downloaded here.

The SJC will ostensibly decide whether lenders holding mortgages held in a securitized pool, with questions whether they in fact were validly assigned those mortgages, can start foreclosures in Massachusetts.

First Steps: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is one of the first steps in the foreclosure process. Lenders must file a complaint in the Land Court under the Act to ensure the borrower is not in active military service. Once the Land Court determines the borrower’s status in the military, then the lender can proceed to advertise and hold a public foreclosure auction. Historically, the Servicemembers action was rather perfunctory, but today borrowers have begun to challenge lenders’ right to start foreclosures in these initial Land Court proceedings.

Lower Court Opinion

In the lower court, Land Court Judge Keith Long (the judge in both the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and Bevilacqua cases), ruled that HSBC Bank had standing to start the foreclosure process under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, despite serious questions as to whether HSBC validly held the mortgage. The original mortgage was held by New Century, which was in bankruptcy when it purported to assign the mortgage to HSBC. There was no evidence the assignment was authorized by the bankruptcy trustee and whether the signatory had any office or authority to transfer New Century’s bankrupt assets to other parties. Despite these questions, Judge Long ruled that HSBC, through a securitized pooling and servicing agreement, had the contractual right to become the holder of the mortgage, thereby conferring enough standing to start the foreclosure process.

SJC Takes Appeal Sua Sponte

The SJC, in a rare move, took the appeal on its own initiative (sua sponte in legalese) from the Appeals Court. It has not yet released an argument schedule. We’ll be following the case here, so stay tuned.

Notably, foreclosure defense attorney Glenn Russell, Esq., the attorney who prevailed before the SJC in the Ibanez case, is representing the home owner in this case.

The Land Court’s ruling is embedded below.

HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt

Mass. AG Martha Coakley Credit: Reuters

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

AG Martha Coakley Files Major Civil Action Against Big Banks

First, the big news. Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” Specifically, Coakley blames the banks for not complying with the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision in foreclosing mortgages without evidence of legal ownership of the underlying debt, improper statutory foreclosure notices and illegal “robo-signing.”

I’m sure Coakley will be able to extract a sizable settlement from the banks, but the question remains, what about the foreclosure mess and toxic titles left in its wake? I hope Coakley seriously considers setting up a toxic title monetary fund to assist homeowners who lack title insurance with clearing their titles due to bungled foreclosures in their chain of title.

Here is a link to the AG’s Complaint.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicers: Federal Judge William Young Grapples With Legality Of MERS System

While AG Coakley was putting the finishing touches on her lawsuit, across the way at the Moakley Courthouse at Fan Pier, U.S. District Judge William G. Young and his cadre of law clerks were attempting to work their way through the legal maze which is the MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) system. The case is Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska. We’ve written about MERS quite a bit here on the blog.

I can say with confidence that Judge Young is one of the smartest jurists on the federal bench and in the Commonwealth. I know this first-hand because I clerked for him in law school.

It took him 59 pages to sort though the myriad of legal issues implicated by the complex MERS system, and he had some very choice (and funny) remarks about the system:

“MERS is the Wikipedia of Land Registration Systems.” . . . “A MERS certifying officer is more akin to an Admiral in the Georgia navy or a Kentucky Colonel with benefits than he is to any genuine financial officer.”

Judge William G. Young

But ultimately, Judge Young concluded that MERS did not run afoul of Massachusetts law, by the “thinnest of venires.” So there you have it. MERS is kosher in Massachusetts, at least according to Judge Young.

However, Judge Young’s ruling came with some important caveats. First, he held that MERS does not have the power to foreclose in its own name. This is no longer an issue as MERS new policy is not to foreclosure in its name. But what about prior foreclosures in MERS’ name? Are those still considered valid?

Second, in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, sec. 54B, he ruled that assignments from MERS’ vice presidents to loan servicers or holders are valid despite the signer’s lack of personal knowledge or proof of actual authority. This is a direct contradiction with AG Coakley’s claim that the MERS assignments are invalid.

Lastly, the most important aspect of Judge Young’s ruling was his agreement that foreclosing lenders must hold both the loan (promissory note) and the mortgage together in unity, to foreclose, following the controversial Superior Court opinion in Eaton v. FNMA which is now on appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court. However, Judge Young added an important distinction to this rule, saying that that loan servicers could foreclose in their names where the loan is held in a pooled securitized trust, provided they otherwise comply with Massachusetts foreclosure law. This is a very important distinction as a fair amount of foreclosures are brought in the name of the loan servicer. I’m not so sure Judge Young got this one right as a loan servicer rarely if ever holds the note as assignee, as Professor Adam Levitin notes, but the ruling certainly assists the industry.

So all eyes are back on the SJC awaiting its ruling in the Eaton case which could have even far more impact than the Ibanez decision. Of course, these two events underscore that foreclosures are still a mess crying out for legislative help (which hasn’t come at all), and the crucial importance of title insurance, which all buyers should elect at their closings.

I’ve done a quick video analysis and embedded Judge Young’s opinion below.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services