High Court's Low Opinion of Foreclosure Practices

Apparently the Massachusetts Supreme Court neglected to read the bipartisan memo reminding politicians and judges to refrain from doing anything that might upset the banks.

Most judges have shown extraordinary deference to bankers, even amid growing evidence that those bankers haven’t been following the law in pursuing foreclosures.

That may be beginning to change, in the wake of a Massachusetts ruling against banks in a closely watched foreclosure case.

Right now the decision only has force in Massachusetts. But as other cases challenging foreclosures make their way through the courts across the country, other judges are likely to be guided by it. In addition, the ruling will also provide guidance for lawyers posing legal challenges to other mortgages scrambled in the securitization process.

The Obama administration has consistently downplayed evidence of rampant fraud and sloppiness in the way banks split up, packaged and sold off mortgages to investors in the heat of the housing bubble.

Almost all subprime mortgages as well as millions of conventional mortgages originated before the meltdown were securitized and sold to investors. Securitized mortgages account for more than half of the $14.2 trillion in the total outstanding U.S. mortgage debt.

Bankers have tried to dismiss these problems with what’s known as the securitization process as a matter of mixed-up paperwork that can be straightened out.

But the highest level court to examine the issue thus far took the issue much more seriously. Last week the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated what had become a common practice – banks seeking to foreclose on properties without properly holding ownership of the promissory note and mortgage as part of the securitization. The court  focused heavily on the use of the power of sale contained in mortgages; the same power exists in the vast majority of California deeds of trust.

Ruling in a closely watched case, the high court rejected arguments by U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. that they didn’t have to prove their authority to foreclose. The banks had argued that evidence that they intended to transfer ownership was enough to establish their standing to foreclose.

The ruling makes dense but fascinating reading, with some passages coming through loud and clear even if you’re not steeped in real estate law.

The justices stressed they weren’t creating any new interpretation of law. “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes,” wrote Justice Ralph D. Gants. “All that has changed is the (banks) apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.”

Banks have argued that their “pooling and servicing agreements” allowed them to transfer mortgages to securitized trusts “in blank” without specifying whom the new owner would be.

But the justices ruled in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez that the “foreclosing party must hold the mortgage at the time of the notice and sale in order accurately to identify itself as the present holder and in order to have the authority to foreclose under the power of sale...”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Cordy wrote: “There is no dispute that the mortgagors (borrowers) had defaulted on their obligations.”

But that’s not the legal standard. “Before commencing such an action...the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order,” Cordy stated.

The ruling could lead to an increase in complicated and expensive litigation, if those whose homes have already been foreclosed on sue to challenge the financial institutions’ authority to conduct the foreclosures. Investors may also sue, contending that the banks didn’t properly document the ownership trail on the mortgages contained in a particular investment pool.

Can banks go back in and straighten out their securitization mess? So far the banks are downplaying the significance of the ruling. But untangling the paperwork may not be so easy. Many of the entities that created the securitized pools have gone bankrupt or dissolved into other businesses. At the very least, it could pose a costly and complicated process for the bankers, one that would entail taking a hard look at the details of the deals that led to the country’s financial collapse.

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 01/11/2011

The Republican Who Tackled Foreclosures

President Obama isn’t the first politician to have to stare a massive foreclosure crisis in the face.

The last time foreclosures loomed so large in the economy and the national consciousness was during the Great Depression, when farmers and homeowners were losing their land in massive numbers.

Several states passed laws including moratoriums on foreclosure. Not because the banks couldn’t prove they owned the farms, or because they screwed up the paperwork. The moratoriums were implemented in recognition that the country was in an economic emergency and that having so many people lose their homes was bad for the country.

Minnesota passed such a law in 1933. After a judge allowed a couple to postpone foreclosure, the building and loan association that owned the mortgagee challenged the law. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that law was a violation of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. But in its  landmark ruling in Home Building v. Blaisdell, the high court upheld the law. By a 5 to 4 vote the court ruled that the contracts clause wasn’t absolute and it didn’t outweigh the rights of the states to protect the vital interests of its citizens. In dissent, Associate Justice George Sutherland warned that the ruling would be just the beginning of further erosion of the contracts clause.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, an appointee of President Herbert Hoover, wrote the majority opinion. Hughes wasn’t some ivory-tower judge but a seasoned and fascinating Republican politician who had served as two-term governor of New York, with a record for establishing a public service commission, as well as pushing through labor law and insurance reform. He ran unsuccessfully for president against Woodrow Wilson before serving his first stint on the Supreme Court before running for president. After a stretch as secretary of state under President Calvin Coolidge, he was in and out of private life before President Hoover appointed him chief justice in 1930.

Though liberals gave him a hard time in his confirmation hearing, he often provided a swing vote in favor of the New Deal on a highly contentious court. But Hughes also repeatedly tangled with Roosevelt, voting against the constitutionality of the National Recovery Administration and opposing FDR’s court-packing scheme.

What do we get from this excursion into history? There’s some comfort in knowing the country has grappled with these tough times and issues before and survived. But it’s hard to encounter a figure like Hughes and not wish that some of his courage and unpredictability could rub off on our current crop of leaders, who seem so timid and tame by comparison, and who seem to have forgotten that protecting the vital interests of citizens isn’t just a matter of bailing out banks and tax cuts for the rich and hoping some of the booty will trickle down to the rest of us.

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 10/13/2010

It's Alive!

Wall Street has weighed in with powerful evidence that the United States Supreme Court was right when it concluded a few weeks ago that corporations are the same as human beings. Turns out, Wall Street has feelings, and they are hurt.

Wall Street is so “irked” at President Obama and the Democratic Party that it is rebuffing their requests for political money, according to the New York Times. “[I]t doesn’t feel good,” when Obama talks about Wall Street greed, complained a Morgan Stanley executive. “The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’” whined a major Wall Street executive. He warned: “‘We are not going to play that game anymore.’”

That’s just a bluff, of course, because Wall Street has been playing the Washington money game for decades – in fact, as we documented in our two hundred page report (PDF) last year, the nation’s economy is in the toilet now because between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street spent $5 billion on Washington, and Washington, without even a hint of partisanship, rolled over – deregulating the industry and encouraging the orgy of speculation that led to the crash.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case guarantees that big business will always be happy by solidifying corporate control over the nation’s legislative process. Discarding one hundred years of previous decisions, the court held that, under the First Amendment, when corporations spend money in the political process, it’s the same as when people make speeches.

This is a travesty. The practical effect of the decision is to accord huge multinational corporations the power to nullify the First Amendment rights of individual Americans. While you and I are “free” to drag a soapbox on to a street corner and  proclaim to our heart’s content, credit card companies, hedge funds, insurance companies are now “free” to unleash tens of millions of dollars from their corporate treasuries in an attempt to fix the outcome of any political debate in their favor. Sometimes that will backfire, as it did when insurance companies spent $80 million trying to persuade voters to defeat Proposition 103, the insurance reform I wrote back in 1988.  Californians figured out who was on the their side, and who wasn’t. But in the vast majority of lower profile issues, in which elected officials are called upon to choose between the policy choice favored by a huge money donor and the one that’s better for constituents, the money talks.

That’s why, despite the near-collapse of our financial system at the hands of the Money Industry, their lobbyists have still been able to stymie just about every congressional proposal to prevent another crash: reform of derivatives and the student loan system, creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and the recent proposal by the White House to ban banks from speculation.

The tyranny of the British monarchy led to the American Revolution. The Supreme Court’s decision substitutes a corporatocracy for the oppression of kings. So far, the tea parties that seem to be erupting spontaneously around the nation are directing their fire at the bailouts and other encroachments of government. They also need to keep an eye on the corporations that are arguably more powerful than the government already, or will soon be so thanks to the Supreme Court.

Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 02/09/2010