Usuary Violations in curing foreclosures - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on December 16, 2002 at 10:37:36:

Nate:

I agree that CA is quite sensitized due to the “foreclosure consultant” issues. However, I have had others post (from other areas of the country, as well as CA) cautioning about usuarious risk when curing foreclosure defaults. These accounts have been associated with a promise to lease-back after curing a default, and then the T/B claims foul, and after acquiring an Atty, the claim is that the whole sale and lease-back was nothing more than a loan scheme… and due to the profit involved in forfeited equity, the return is in excess of usuary limits.

Sooooo, I am interested in specifics of past problems, as alledged… and maybe the case can be dissected by my Atty to determine if I would be at risk for the same potential problems. My Atty does see the potential problem, but would want to review the other court cases before rendering a further opinion as to my position in a similar case, should it arrise.

JT-IN

Usuary Violations in curing foreclosures - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on December 16, 2002 at 08:59:32:

There have been numberous claims in the past, mostly about dealings in CA, about investors bailing out a homeowner in foreclosure… only to found later to have violated the states Usuary laws.

The claim has been made that such a bailout has been deemed by the courts to be nothing more than a Loan to the homeowner, and upon default and eviction, the homeowners have claimed abuse and excessive rates on these loans.

What I am looking for is a hard reference to case numbers of any such claims… whether in CA or any other state. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

I am attempting to pin down the precise violation of the statute, and be certain that these precedents would have no impact on anything that I am doing in this area… Just wanting to perform an acid test, in advance, of the proceedures that I am using. I have an Attorney who will sort this out for me, but he needs case references…

I am willing to share the results of this due diligence with anyone that can produce info as to case specific details.

Thanks in advance for any info that I may be able to use.

JT-IN

William Bronchick’s recent article about this - Posted by Dianna in Seattle

Posted by Dianna in Seattle on December 16, 2002 at 22:57:57:

Can Foreclosure Investing be Criminal?

by William Bronchick, Esq.

I recently attended a “free” seminar on how to “get rich quick” in foreclosures. The speaker had a different angle than the usual “steal it from the homeowner” method.
The speaker suggested that you approach the homeowner with the following plan:

Tell the homeowner you will make up his back payments and give him some cash
Take title to the property.
Lease it back to the former owner with an option to buy it back for one year.
The speaker suggested that after one year, the house would be yours if the former owner didn’t exercise his option. Sounds great doesn’t it? You could beat out all your competition who are trying to “steal” the same house.

Well, here’s the catch. The poor homeowner in foreclosure will be your best friend when you make up his back payments. However, when the year is up and he can’t get his house back, the trouble will begin.

In a number of cases, these homeowners will go to court and claim that the “sale/leaseback” was really just a disguised loan. He or his attorney will ask the court to “re-characterize” the transaction as a loan and place title to the property back in his name (for an in-depth discussion of sale/leaseback re-characterizations, read “How to Structure Sale-Leaseback Transactions”). If the court agrees, the loan is illegal, since it is usurious.

Here’s how it works: Let’s say that you find a house in foreclosure worth $100k. The balance of the loan $50k, and the homeowner is behind $5k. You agree to make up the back payments of $5k and take title. You then lease it back to the homeowner with an option to buy it back for $100k, its fair market value. What’s the problem?

The problem is that if the court re-characterizes the transaction from a sale/leaseback to a loan, you have loaned the homeowner $5k at 1000% interest! Think about it . . . you give him $5k, and he has to pay $50k ($100k option price minus the $50k loan balance) to get his equity back. 1000% interest is usury, and the court will set aside the loan. You will lose the house AND your $5k.

If you’re not familiar with the word “usury,” it means charging more interest than permitted by law. The consequences of a usurious loan are usually civil; the court will declare the loan void and the borrower won’t have to pay it back. If you get caught making usurious loans on a regular basis, you’ll be hearing the words “loan-sharking” and “racketeering.” These are CRIMINAL acts that will get you in jail. Many foreclosure real estate investors have been indicted on racketeering charges for doing exactly what I described above.

The Better Way to Do It

The safer way to deal with someone in foreclosure is to buy him out and get him to leave. If a person is in serious financial trouble, chances are he will get into trouble again. Thus, you will end up with a messy eviction and a court battle when the tenant/former owner. If homeowner insists on staying in the property, then simply lease it to him without an option to purchase.

If the homeowner is not willing to be just a tenant and has significant equity in the property, offer a partnership arrangement wherein the partnership will own the property. Your contribution to the partnership is the money to cure the back payments due on the loan. The homeowner?s contribution is the equity in his home. The partnership will lease the property to the former homeowner for market rent. If he defaults on the rent payments, the partnership evicts him. The former homeowner still has a partnership interest, but he does not have possession. At that point, you can buy him out of the partnership.

The partnership approach should not be approached without the assistance of qualified legal counsel.

For comments or questions, e-mail bronchick@legalwiz.com.

Copyright 1998 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be copied
or reprinted without the express written permission of the Author.

Can Foreclosure Investing be Criminal?

by William Bronchick, Esq.

I recently attended a “free” seminar on how to “get rich quick” in foreclosures. The speaker had a different angle than the usual “steal it from the homeowner” method.
The speaker suggested that you approach the homeowner with the following plan:

Tell the homeowner you will make up his back payments and give him some cash
Take title to the property.
Lease it back to the former owner with an option to buy it back for one year.
The speaker suggested that after one year, the house would be yours if the former owner didn’t exercise his option. Sounds great doesn’t it? You could beat out all your competition who are trying to “steal” the same house.

Well, here’s the catch. The poor homeowner in foreclosure will be your best friend when you make up his back payments. However, when the year is up and he can’t get his house back, the trouble will begin.

In a number of cases, these homeowners will go to court and claim that the “sale/leaseback” was really just a disguised loan. He or his attorney will ask the court to “re-characterize” the transaction as a loan and place title to the property back in his name (for an in-depth discussion of sale/leaseback re-characterizations, read “How to Structure Sale-Leaseback Transactions”). If the court agrees, the loan is illegal, since it is usurious.

Here’s how it works: Let’s say that you find a house in foreclosure worth $100k. The balance of the loan $50k, and the homeowner is behind $5k. You agree to make up the back payments of $5k and take title. You then lease it back to the homeowner with an option to buy it back for $100k, its fair market value. What’s the problem?

The problem is that if the court re-characterizes the transaction from a sale/leaseback to a loan, you have loaned the homeowner $5k at 1000% interest! Think about it . . . you give him $5k, and he has to pay $50k ($100k option price minus the $50k loan balance) to get his equity back. 1000% interest is usury, and the court will set aside the loan. You will lose the house AND your $5k.

If you’re not familiar with the word “usury,” it means charging more interest than permitted by law. The consequences of a usurious loan are usually civil; the court will declare the loan void and the borrower won’t have to pay it back. If you get caught making usurious loans on a regular basis, you’ll be hearing the words “loan-sharking” and “racketeering.” These are CRIMINAL acts that will get you in jail. Many foreclosure real estate investors have been indicted on racketeering charges for doing exactly what I described above.

The Better Way to Do It

The safer way to deal with someone in foreclosure is to buy him out and get him to leave. If a person is in serious financial trouble, chances are he will get into trouble again. Thus, you will end up with a messy eviction and a court battle when the tenant/former owner. If homeowner insists on staying in the property, then simply lease it to him without an option to purchase.

If the homeowner is not willing to be just a tenant and has significant equity in the property, offer a partnership arrangement wherein the partnership will own the property. Your contribution to the partnership is the money to cure the back payments due on the loan. The homeowner?s contribution is the equity in his home. The partnership will lease the property to the former homeowner for market rent. If he defaults on the rent payments, the partnership evicts him. The former homeowner still has a partnership interest, but he does not have possession. At that point, you can buy him out of the partnership.

The partnership approach should not be approached without the assistance of qualified legal counsel.

For comments or questions, e-mail bronchick@legalwiz.com.

Copyright 1998 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be copied
or reprinted without the express written permission of the Author.

Re: Usuary Violations in curing foreclosures - Posted by Mike

Posted by Mike on December 16, 2002 at 14:16:32:

I don’t think this is specific to California. Another good example of why investors should go in and buy the mortgage out entirely and clear the title or risk getting screwed further down the line. The saying “it takes money to make money” exists for a reason.

Re: Usuary Violations in curing foreclosures - Posted by Jim V

Posted by Jim V on December 16, 2002 at 11:14:40:

Onofrio v Rice is the most commonly referred to:

Re: Usuary Violations in curing foreclosures - Posted by Nate(DC)

Posted by Nate(DC) on December 16, 2002 at 09:56:20:

JT,

I believe that in some instances, the California problem stems from a provision in CA code known as “foreclosure consultants”. There is a specific regulation in CA describing the permitted behavior of someone acting as a “foreclosure consultant”, which applies much stricter rules than are applicable in “normal” real estate transactions. The statue also defines what a “foreclosure consultant” is, and apparently if you are having any dealings with someone in FC where they stay in the house, it is quite easy to fall under the statute.

This is all secondhand, as I have not actually read the statute myself, but if you were to search the CA code for “foreclosure consultant”, you should find what you are looking for.

Good luck,
NT