Title Insurance

Massachusetts Appeals Court Rules That Lost Promissory Note Renders Mortgage Unenforceable

by Rich Vetstein on March 2, 2012 · 3 comments

in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgages,Real Estate Litigation,Title Defects,Title Insurance

Case Underscores Importance of Safeguarding Loan Documents And Getting Subordinations

JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Casarano, Mass. Appeals Court (Feb. 28, 2012) (click to read)

In a decision which could impact foreclosure cases involving missing or lost loan documents, the Appeals Court held that a mortgage is unenforceable and must be discharged where the underlying promissory note securing the mortgage could not be found.

Seller Second Mortgage Financing

This case involved an unconventional second mortgage for approximately $15,000 taken back from a private seller. The homeowner subsequently refinanced the first mortgage several times, but the refinancing lenders’ attorneys never obtained a subordination from the second lien-holder. That was a mistake. The first mortgage wound up in Wells Fargo’s hands which realized that due to the lack of recorded subordination, the second mortgage was senior to its first mortgage.

Alas, a title claim arose and the title insurance company had to step in and file an “equitable subrogation” action. In this type of legal action, a first mortgage holder asks the court to rearrange the priorities of mortgages due to mistake, inadvertence or to prevent injustice.

Where’s The Note?

The second mortgage holder had lost the promissory note which secured its mortgage, and notably, could not locate a copy of it. The mortgage itself referenced the amount of the loan and the interest rate but was silent on everything else, including the payment term, maturity date, and whether it was under seal. The second mortgage holder argued that enough of the terms of the missing note could be “imported” from the mortgage, but the Appeals Court disagreed, reasoning that there wasn’t enough specificity on key terms to enforce the mortgage.

Lesson One: Safeguard Original Loan Docs

This decision underscores the importance of safeguarding original promissory notes and other debt instruments, or at a minimum keeping photocopies so that if enforcement is required, the material terms of the original can be proved to the satisfaction of the court. With all the paperwork irregularities endemic with securitized mortgages these days, missing or lost promissory notes and loan documents have become more prevalent. This decision is potentially problematic for those foreclosures where the original promissory note is lost. The standard Fannie Mae form mortgage does not spell out the loan terms with specificity, instead, it references the promissory note. Indeed, the Fannie Mae mortgage does not even reference the interest rate. Based on this decision, a mortgage without sufficient evidence of a promissory note could be rendered unenforceable and un-forecloseable.

As an aside, a lender who lacks an original promissory note could rely upon Uniform Commercial Code Section 3-309, which provides:

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

Lesson Two: Get Subordinations For Junior Liens

This decision also underscores the importance of getting a subordination agreement for second mortgages and other junior lien-holders when closing refinances. A subordination agreement is a contract whereby a junior lien-holder agrees to remain in junior position to a first mortgage or other senior lien-holder during a refinancing transaction. Otherwise, the first in time rule of recording would elevate a junior lien-holder to first, priority position after a refinance. If a subordination was obtained and recorded here, this case would not have occurred.

Disclaimer: I drafted the original complaint in this case while working at my previous law firm. I had long since left when the case was decided at the Appeals Court.

___________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate and title defect attorney. He can be reached by email at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com or 508-620-5352.

{ 3 comments }

Lawmakers To The Rescue? Legislation Filed To Fix “Ibanez” Foreclosure Title Defects

by Rich Vetstein on February 28, 2012 · 8 comments

in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages,Title Defects,Title Insurance

Post image for Lawmakers To The Rescue? Legislation Filed To Fix “Ibanez” Foreclosure Title Defects

Massachusetts Senate Bill 830 Addresses Toxic Foreclosure Titles

Finally, Massachusetts lawmakers have taken action to help innocent purchasers of foreclosed properties in the aftermath of the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez decisions, which resulted in widespread title defects for previously foreclosed properties. The legislation, Senate Bill 830, An Act Clearing Titles To Foreclosed Properties, is sponsored by Shrewsbury State Senator Michael Moore and the Massachusetts Land Title Association. Full text is embedded below.

The bill, if approved, will amend the state foreclosure laws to validate a foreclosure, even if it’s technically deficient under the Ibanez ruling, so long as the previously foreclosed owner does not file a legal challenge to the validity of the foreclosure within 90 days of the foreclosure auction.

The bill has support from both the community/housing sector and the real estate industry. Indeed, the left-leaning Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), non-profit umbrella organization for affordable housing and community development activities in Massachusetts, has filed written testimony in support of the bill.

Properties afflicted with Ibanez title defects, in worst cases, cannot be sold or refinanced. Homeowners without title insurance are compelled to spend thousands in legal fees to clear their titles. Allowing such foreclosed properties to sit and languish in title purgatory is a huge drain on individual, innocent home purchasers and the housing market itself.

A recent case in point: I was recently contacted by a nice couple who bought a Metrowest condominium in 2008 after it had been foreclosed. Little did they know that the foreclosure suffered from an “Ibanez” title defect. Unfortunately, the lawyer who handled the closing did not recommend they buy owner’s title insurance. They have been unable to track down the prior owner who went back to his home country of Brazil, and now they are stuck without many options, unable to refinance or sell their unit. This bill will help people like this who have helped the housing market by purchasing foreclosed properties, and improving them.

The bill is now before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Please email them to show your support of Senate Bill 830.
_______________________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate and title defect attorney. He can be reached by email at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com or 508-620-5352.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 830

{ 8 comments }

Supplemental and Friend-Of-The-Court Briefs Filed In Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n (Fannie Mae)

by Rich Vetstein on January 31, 2012 · 13 comments

in Fannie Mae,Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages,Title Defects,Title Insurance

Post image for Supplemental and Friend-Of-The-Court Briefs Filed In Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n (Fannie Mae)

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.

{ 13 comments }

Do I Need A Plot Plan For My Massachusetts Real Estate Closing?

by Rich Vetstein on January 6, 2012 · 0 comments

in Boundaries,Closings,Deeds,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Permitting/Zoning,Title Insurance,Zoning

Plot Plans, also called Mortgage Inspection Plans, were once part of every Massachusetts real estate purchase closing. These days, some lenders do not require them and I will tell you why in this post. However, despite the limitations of a plot plan, I think it’s a good idea for buyers to purchase a plot plan at closing. The typical cost of a plot plan is around $125.00 so it’s affordable.

While it is not nearly as accurate as a full instrument land survey, a plot plan will give the buyer a visual of the lot lines, the approximate location of the home and accessory structures, and any easements running through the land. Also, when you go to sell your property, a plot plan is helpful for prospective buyers to review as part of the marketing package.

What Is A Plot Plan?

A plot plan, also called a Mortgage Inspection Plan, confirms the following information:

Does the house or building, as well as accessory structures (pools, sheds, etc), conform to the local setback zoning by-laws?
Does the house or building, as well as accessory structures, fall within the FEMA flood hazard zone (which would require flood insurance)?
Are there any building encroachments?
Are there any recorded easements running through the property?

In addition to answering these questions, a plot plan includes helpful reference information such as the deed book and page numbers, property plan numbers, land court plan numbers (if applicable), assessor map and lot numbers and F.E.M.A. rate map numbers. This information can be very helpful to the homeowner and a potential buyer as well.

How Is A Plot Plan Prepared?

It is important to point out that a plot plan is NOT a land survey, and is not prepared using standard instrument survey instruments. A plot plan is prepared using visual inspection and measuring tapes only. A physical inspection of the dwelling’s exterior is made, with tape measurements to show the approximate location of the dwelling. The preparer will review the recorded deed and plan(s) obtained at the Registry of Deeds or town offices to determine the lot configuration. Information from the field is merged with record information to create a drawing of the property (the plot plan) and the approximate location of the dwelling on the lot. The flood zone is determined. A quality review performed by Professional Land Surveyor.

The accuracy of a plot plan is usually within two to three feet. The field work involved in preparing the Mortgage Inspection Plan does not include the setting of property line stakes. Therefore, although tape measurements are sufficient to make zoning and flood hazard determinations, the plan should not be used as a substitute for a “Building Permit Plot Plan” or to determine property lines. A plot plan cannot be used as a substitute for a full instrument land survey.

What is Not Provided by a Mortgage Plot Plan?

As stated before, a plot plan has its limitations, which is a reason cited by lenders for not requiring them, such as:

No representation is made as to the accuracy of the depicted property lines.
No attempt has been made to verify the boundary configuration or, typically, the mathematical correctness of the legal property description.
Property corners can not be located based on this type of plan, therefore no fences, hedge rows or other improvements can be determined or located.
The location of any improvements shown are approximate, and therefore any planned construction should not be based on the locations as shown.

What is a Certified Plot Plan, Boundary, Land or Instrument Survey?
An accurate instrument land survey involves the location of established monuments or survey control points, which are then mathematically tied in to the property being surveyed. This process utilizes sophisticated, state-of-the-art equipment, and precisely locates both the property lines and the improvements on the property in relation to those property lines. The cost of a full instrument survey can range from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the property. You can use a land survey for construction, Land Court, and Registry of Deeds plans.

How Do I Get A Plot Plan?

If your lender requires a plot plan at closing — check your Good Faith Estimate or closing cost worksheet — it will order one for you and you’ll have it at closing. If your lender does not require a plot plan, speak to your closing attorney and they will gladly order one for you!

______________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. Please contact him if you need assistance with a Massachusetts purchase or sale transaction.

{ 0 comments }

Joe Paterno, Penn St., Massachusetts Asset Protection and Fraudulent Property Transfers

by Rich Vetstein on November 19, 2011 · 3 comments

in Bankruptcy,Liens,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Real Estate Litigation,Title Insurance

Post image for Joe Paterno, Penn St., Massachusetts Asset Protection and Fraudulent Property Transfers

Joe Paterno Conveys Home to Wife For $1, “Love and Affection”

For topical reasons, I have had no reason to post about the despicable Penn St. child abuse scandal on this blog. Until now — when I came across an interesting New York Times article on Joe Paterno’s recent real estate activity. The Times reports that this summer “Joe Pa.” transferred title to his State College home to his wife for $1 and “love and affection.” Some say the transfer was intended to avoid the inevitable fallout from the Penn St. child abuse scandal and legal action brought by victims of the scandal. Joe Paterno’s attorney, however, says that this transfer was part of the Paternos’ long standing estate plan.

Fraudulent Transfers

The debate centers over what’s known legally as a fraudulent transfers. Fraudulent transfers are property conveyances made with the specific intent to place the property outside the reach of creditors, or made where “the debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and made it while insolvent.” The latter definition, in plain English, means the owner was broke and received less than market value for the sale of the property. Fraudulent transfers can be undone by the courts so creditors can tap into a home’s equity to satisfy legal judgments.

In Joe Paterno’s case, the $1.00 stated consideration for the transfer to his wife typically raises a red flag as a potential fraudulent transfer. If Paterno can prove that the transfer was indeed made as part of a legitimate estate plan, then he could avoid a fraudulent transfer determination. If the transfer is determined to be fraudulent so as to avoid liability for the child abuse scandal, the transfer to his wife can be undone by his creditors with the help of the court. And this is true even if Joe were to file bankruptcy. Moreover, the look-back period for fraudulent transfers is rather long–as long as 4 years under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and even up to 10 years in the case of conveyances into trusts (where the debtor holds the beneficial interest) under 2005 bankruptcy law amendments.

Also, fraudulent transfers are typically excluded from coverage under owner’s title insurance policies. So if you purchased a property which later becomes the subject of a fraudulent transfer lawsuit, you may be on your own, which is a scary proposition.

Asset Protection, Homesteads and More

There’s nothing wrong or illegal about protecting your assets for the future. There are a myriad of legal and safe methods from protecting your property. But, if you wait until there is a problem, it’s usually too late to fix it. The same is true for asset protection planning. Simply put, do it as early as possible, well before creditors are chasing you down.

The first choice should almost always be to declare homestead protection on your principal residence. We’ve written about the new, enhanced Massachusetts homestead protection quite a bit. In a nutshell, a homestead will protect up to $500,000 in equity from most creditors. It’s a relatively simply form recorded with the county registry of deeds.

For more sophisticated asset protection devices such as trusts, family limited partnerships, LLC’s, and even offshore vehicles, I would recommend a reputable estate planning attorney. My friends at Pabian & Russell in Boston are a good place to start.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. Please contact him if you need legal assistance purchasing residential or commercial real estate.

{ 3 comments }

What Now? Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez Leaves Toxic Foreclosure Titles Unclear

by Rich Vetstein on October 18, 2011 · 11 comments

in Deeds,Foreclosure,Liens,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages,Real Estate Litigation,Title Defects,Title Insurance

Post image for What Now? Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez Leaves Toxic Foreclosure Titles Unclear

No Easy Fix For Defective Foreclosure Titles After U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Ruling

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion today in the much anticipated Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez case considering property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures in the aftermath of the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling last January. (Text of case is embedded below). Where Ibanez consider the validity of foreclosures plagued by late-recorded or missing mortgage assignments, Bevilacqua is the next step, considering what happens when lenders sell defective foreclosure titles to third party purchasers. Previously, I discussed the oral argument in the case here and detailed background of the case here.

The final ruling is mix of bad and good news, with the bad outweighing the good as fixing defective Massachusetts foreclosure titles just got a lot harder and more expensive. But, contrary to some sensationalist headlines, the sky is not falling down as the majority of foreclosures performed in the last several years were legal and conveyed good title. Bevilacqua affects those minority percentage of foreclosures where mortgage assignments were not recorded in a timely fashion under the Ibanez case and were otherwise conducted unlawfully. Importantly, Bevilacqua does not address the robo-signing controversy, which may or may not be considered by the high court in another case.

The Bad News

First the bad news. The Court held that owners cannot bring a court action to clear their titles under the “try title” procedure in the Massachusetts Land Court. This is the headline that the major news outlets have been running with, but it was not a surprise to anyone who has been following the case. Contrary to the Daily Kos, the court did not take the property away from Bevilacqua. He never held good title it in the first place–and you can blame the banksters for that. If you don’t own a piece of property (say the Brooklyn Bridge), you cannot come into court and ask a judge to proclaim you the owner of that property, even if the true owner doesn’t show up to defend himself. It’s Property Law 101.

The Good News

Next the good news. 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. Unfortunately, the SJC did not provide the real estate community with any further guidance as to how best to resolve these complicated title defects.

Background: Developer Buys Defective Foreclosure Title

Frank Bevilacqua purchased property in Haverhill out of foreclosure from U.S. Bank. Apparently, Bevilacqua invested several hundred thousand dollars into the property, converting it into condominiums. The prior foreclosure, however, was bungled by U.S. Bank and rendered void under the Ibanez case. Mr. Bevilacqua (or presumably his title insurance attorney) brought an action to “try title” in the Land Court to clear up his title, arguing that he is the rightful owner of the property, despite the faulty foreclosure, inasmuch as the prior owner, Rodriguez, was nowhere to be found.

Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) closed the door on Mr. Bevilacqua, dismissing his case, but with compassion for his plight.

“I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote.

Given the case’s importance, the SJC took the unusual step of hearing it on direct review.

No Standing To “Try Title” Action In Land Court

The SJC agreed with Judge Long that Bevilacqua did not own the property, and therefore, lacked any standing to pursue a “try title” action in the Land Court. The faulty foreclosure was void, thereby voiding the foreclosure deed to Bevilacqua. The Court endorsed Judge Long’s “Brooklyn Bridge” analogy, which posits that if someone records a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, then brings a lawsuit to uphold such ownership and the “owner” of the bridge doesn’t appear, title to the bridge is not conveyed magically. The claimant in a try title or quiet title case, the court ruled, must have some plausible ownership interest in the property, and Bevilacqua lacked any at this point in time.

The court also held, for many of the same reasons, that Bevilacqua lacked standing as a “bona fide good faith purchaser for value.” The record title left no question that U.S. Bank had conducted an invalid foreclosure sale, the court reasoned.

Door Left Open? Re-Foreclosure In Owner’s Name?

A remedy left open, however, was whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together and conduct new foreclosure sales in their name to clear their titles. The legal reasoning behind this remedy is rather complex, but essentially it says that Bevilacqua would be granted the right to foreclosure by virtue of holding an “equitable assignment” of the mortgage foreclosed upon by U.S. Bank. There are some logistical issues with the current owner conducting a new foreclosure sale and it’s expensive, but it could work.

That is if the SJC rules in the upcoming Eaton v. FNMA case that foreclosing parties do not need to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage when they foreclose. An adverse ruling in the Eaton case could throw a monkey wrench into the re-foreclosure remedy–it would also be an even bigger bombshell ruling than Ibanez, as it would throw into question the foreclosure of every securitized mortgage in Massachusetts.

In Bevilacqua’s case, he did not conduct the new foreclosure sale, so it was premature for the court to rule on that issue. Look for Bevilacqua to conduct the new foreclosure and come back to court again. The SJC left that option open.

Other Remedies & What’s Next?

The other remedy to fix an Ibanez defect, which is always available, is to track down the old owner and obtain a quitclaim deed from him. This eliminates the need for a second foreclosure sale and is often the “cleanest” way to resolve Ibanez titles.

Another option is waiting out the 3 year entry period. Foreclosure can be completed by sale or by entry which is the act of the foreclosure attorney or lender representative physically entering onto the property. Foreclosures by entry are deemed valid after 3 years have expired from the certificate of entry which should be filed with the foreclosure. It’s best to check with a real estate attorney to see if this option is available.

The last resort is to demand that the foreclosing lender re-do its foreclosure sale. The problem is that a new foreclosure could open the door for a competing bid to the property and other logistical issues, not to mention recalcitrant foreclosing lenders and their foreclosure mill attorneys.

Title insurance companies who have insured Ibanez afflicted titles have been steadily resolving these titles since the original Ibanez decision in 2009. I’m not sure how many defective foreclosure titles remain out there right now. There certainly could be a fair amount lurking in titles unknown to those purchasers who bought REO properties from lenders such as U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, etc. If you bought such a property, I recommend you have an attorney check the back title and find your owner’s title insurance policy. Those without title insurance, of course, have and will continue to bear the brunt of this mess.

More Coverage:

_____________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure title defect matters & cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez; Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court October 18, 2011

{ 11 comments }

The Jedi Master Mortgage Discharge Tracker

by Rich Vetstein 06.27.2011 Massachusetts Real Estate Law

Don’t Let An Undischarged Mortgage Ruin Your Closing Real estate attorneys are often confronted with difficult and complex title defects which need to be cured. With the refinancing boom of the last 10 years, sloppy, high-volume closing attorneys occasionally failed to obtain discharges of mortgage they were paying off at closing. Likewise, home equity closings [...]

Read the full article →

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Title Insurance Kickback Class Action Case

by Rich Vetstein 06.25.2011 Massachusetts Real Estate Law

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Edwards v. First American Title In a case closely watched by the title insurance and real estate settlement services industry, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a class action which will decide whether consumers can sue under the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) over a title [...]

Read the full article →

An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Enhanced Owner’s Title Insurance Offers Valuable Benefits

by Rich Vetstein 04.13.2011 Massachusetts Real Estate Law

When you find out you have a major title problem that prevents you from selling or refinancing your home, have fun explaining to your spouse that for a fraction of the cost of your home you could’ve prevented it by buying title insurance. Enhanced Owner’s Title Insurance Coverage Available for a few years now, enhanced [...]

Read the full article →

From Escrows To Title Insurance: Making Sense Of Massachusetts Real Estate Closing Costs

by Rich Vetstein 02.16.2011 Closings

One of the most important jobs of the closing attorney during a Massachusetts refinance or purchase transaction is to fully explain the numerous closing costs that a borrower (and seller) must pay at closing. The best way to explain Massachusetts real estate closing costs in a blog post is the same way we would explain [...]

Read the full article →

Breaking News: U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Foreclosure Ruling Upheld: An Indictment Of The Securitized Mortgage System

by Rich Vetstein 01.07.2011 Foreclosure

“[W]hat is surprising about these cases is … the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.” –Justice Robert Cordy, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled against foreclosing lenders and those who purchased foreclosed properties in Massachusetts in the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez [...]

Read the full article →

Focus On The Foreclosure Mess: Title Insurance, Robo-Signing, & Ibanez

by Rich Vetstein 10.26.2010 Foreclosure

Two good questions came from my Boston.com real estate blog readers about the recent foreclosure mess. “Are title insurance companies still insuring foreclosure properties?”– James In Cambridge Answer: Yes, they are. Initially, the press reported that some major title insurers had temporarily stopped insuring foreclosure titles from JP Morgan Chase, Ally Financial, and Bank of [...]

Read the full article →

50 Ways To Lose Your Home, And Only One Way To Protect It, An Owner’s Title Insurance Policy

by Rich Vetstein 09.28.2010 Massachusetts Real Estate Law

She said it’s really not my habit to intrude Furthermore, I hope my meaning won’t be lost or misconstrued But I’ll repeat myself, at the risk of being crude There must be fifty ways to leave your lover Fifty ways to leave your lover “50 Ways To Leave Your Lover” (c) Paul Simon 50 Ways [...]

Read the full article →

The Massachusetts Lis Pendens: A Real Estate Litigator’s Best Friend

by Rich Vetstein 06.13.2010 Liens

Overview: Lis Pendens, Latin for “A Suit Pending” A lis pendens is Latin for “a suit pending.” Under the Massachusetts lis pendens law, a lis pendens is a notice endorsed by a judge certifying that there is litigation pending involving the title or occupancy rights to a property. Where real estate deals go sour, a [...]

Read the full article →

Ibanez Foreclosure Case Heading To Massachusetts High Court?

by Rich Vetstein 02.22.2010 Foreclosure

Update (3/24/10): SJC Accepts Ibanez Case For those of you following the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, which invalidated potentially thousands of foreclosures across the state, both sides last week asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to take the case — as I originally predicted. The SJC’s acceptance of the case would cut months [...]

Read the full article →

In Search Of A “Good Faith Accurate,” Not Just A Good Faith Estimate: A Senior Loan Officer’s Review Of The New 2010 RESPA Rules

by Rich Vetstein 01.06.2010 Closings

I’m pleased to welcome another guest blogger, David M. Gaffin, a licensed Loan Officer with Greenpark Mortgage Corp. of Needham MA. Dave is licensed to originate in MA, NH and FL. You can visit him at Greenpark Mortgage or through his LinkedIn profile. The new 2010 RESPA rules are all the rage right now. So [...]

Read the full article →

New RESPA Rules 2010: Disclosure of Settlement Services, Closing Attorneys’ Fees, And Title Insurance

by Rich Vetstein 01.03.2010 Closings

In this post, I’ll discuss a very important issue to lenders, closing attorneys and borrowers alike: how the new RESPA rules handle the disclosure of closing attorney fees/costs and title insurance. The new RESPA rules significantly change the way lenders must disclose settlement services, in particular closing attorneys’ fees, and title insurance. Generally, under the [...]

Read the full article →

Ibanez Ruling Foreclosure Update: Nothing Much To Report

by Rich Vetstein 12.23.2009 Foreclosure

Update (2/25/10)–Mass. High Court May Take Ibanez Case I’ve been asked several times recently for an update on the status of Land Court judge Keith Long’s controversial ruling in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, which invalidated thousands of foreclosures across Massachusetts. Click here for my prior post on the case. Unfortunately for those affected by the [...]

Read the full article →

RESPA Update: HUD Issues New Settlement Cost Booklet and Powerpoint Presentation

by Rich Vetstein 12.21.2009 Condominium Law

With 11 days and counting until all lenders and closing attorneys must be in compliance with the new RESPA requirements and the new Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and HUD-1 Settlement Statement, HUD has released two helpful documents: Shopping For Your Home Loan: HUD’s Settlement Cost Booklet. Loan originators are required to provide consumers with a [...]

Read the full article →

Are You Ready For Some RESPA Reform? Part I, An Overview Of The New Regulations

by Rich Vetstein 11.17.2009 Closings

New, sweeping changes regulating how lenders, closing attorneys and title companies disclose loan and closing costs are set to go into effect January 1, 2010. The new regulations are part of a long awaited reform to the 30 year old Real Estate Settlement Practices Act known as RESPA aimed at providing greater transparency and fostering [...]

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries