Foreclosure 101: The good, the bad and the ugly—understanding foreclosures under the Oregon Trust Deed Act

When you borrow money to purchase a home in Oregon, the loan is usually memorialized in a written promissory note that contains your unconditional promise to pay a certain sum on a certain date by a certain time.  Borrower and lender also generally enter into a separately-memorialized security agreement at the same time the promissory note is executed. This “security agreement” does exactly what it sounds like—it secures your promise to repay the loan. Traditionally, the security agreement of choice in Oregon was a mortgage. If you defaulted on your mortgage, your lender could then exercise its right to sell your property to satisfy the obligation, but it could only do so by bringing a judicial action against you in court. This is what is known as a "judicial foreclosure" because judicial involvement is required in order to foreclose on a home.  However, as any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you, lawsuits in any forum for any reason can be slow, expensive and uncertain. Lenders wanted a faster, easier, more streamlined process.


Enter the Oregon Trust Deed Act (commonly known as the OTDA).
 

The OTDA was enacted in 1959 to provide a nonjudicial alternative to the long-standing judicial foreclosure process. This nonjudicial alternative would be available if the parties first used a trust deed instead of a mortgage to secure their loan.  What is a trust deed? A trust deed works much like a mortgage, except that instead of two parties to the security agreement (the borrower/mortgagor and the lender/mortgagee), there are three parties: (1) the "grantor" of the trust (the borrower), (2) the "beneficiary" of the trust (the lender), and an independent "trustee" of the trust who has the power to sell the property without court approval in the event that the borrower defaults on the note. This process—when a trustee appointed under a trust deed sells a piece of property without court involvement after a borrower default—is known as a "nonjudicial foreclosure."
 

Nonjudicial foreclosures under the OTDA were much faster, much easier and much cheaper than traditional judicial foreclosures. The result? Lenders in Oregon stopped using mortgages as the security instrument of choice (real shock here) and started using trust deeds instead. So if you are a homeowner with a “mortgage,”, it is almost certainly the case that you do not actually have “a mortgage" (even though your lender and everybody else might refer to it as a mortgage), but have a trust deed securing your loan instead. (For more information, read our blog What Do You Mean I Don't Have a Mortgage?").

So here’s a brief recap in a nutshell.

OTDA created in 1959.

If lender uses trust deeds, lenders  have right to use the nonjudicial foreclosure process under the OTDA.

Nonjudicial foreclosure = trustee sale (a means of foreclosing on a piece of property without having to go to court.
 


But there are rules.

 

If a lender wants to use the faster, nonjudicial process available under the OTDA, there are explicit conditions that the lender must follow. Substantial compliance is not enough. These conditions must be followed to the letter. These conditions include:

• Recording the trust deed, and any assignments of the trust deed, in the county where the property is located (much more on this "recording" requirement later)
• An actual default on the obligation, "the performance of which is secured by the trust deed;"
• Recording a notice of default containing the trustee's or beneficiary's election to sell the property to satisfy the obligation; and
• The absence of any other pending or completed litigation for recovery of the debt (with limited exceptions).

 In addition to those conditions, the OTDA prescribes the notice requirements that protect trust deed grantors (you) from unauthorized nonjudicial foreclosures and sales of your property. Among other things, a trustee is required to provide you at least 120 days advance notice of the trustee's sale. This 120-day advance notice period is designed to give you time to seek judicial intervention if need be. You also have the right to “cure” your default at any time up to five (5) days before the date last set for the sale (more on “curing” a default below).

  


Here are a few more important facts.
 

One of the biggest differences between a judicial and nonjudicial foreclosure involves what is referred to as the "statutory right of redemption." In a judicial foreclosure action, the borrower has the right to redeem (i.e., buy back) the property for up to six months after the foreclosure for the amount that the property was sold for at the sheriff's sale. No such right exists if the property is sold at a nonjudicial trustee's sale. Seems kind of unfair on its face, right? That lenders can use a much faster nonjudicial foreclosure process AND the borrower has no statutory right of redemption?
 

Well...yes and no. In the law, there are always trade-offs. The trade off here is in how a borrower can “cure” a default in a judicial versus nonjudicial action.
 

In a judicial foreclosure, in order to cure a default and stop a foreclosure action, the borrower must, in most instances, pay the full amount of the loan plus costs. As you can well imagine, this is an almost impossible burden for most homeowners in default to meet. However, in a nonjudicial action, the borrower can cure the default by simply paying all amounts past due (meaning the arrearage), plus costs. This obligation is much more manageable. So while the timelines are much shorter with the nonjudicial foreclosure process, the burden for curing the default is much lower.
 

That is a good thing.

**********

In the aftermath of the OTDA, the foreclosure process here in Oregon looked much the same. Judicial foreclosures were extremely rare. A “foreclosure on my mortgage” really meant a nonjudicial trustee’s sale pursuant to the rights given to a trustee under a trust deed. These nonjudicial foreclosures went largely unchallenged for decades.

Then everything changed.

In 2012, the State of Oregon Court of Appeals dropped the legal equivalent of a megaton bomb on the nonjudicial foreclosure process in the case of Niday v. GMAC.  Niday exposed fundamental flaws in what had become standard operating procedure in the nonjudicial foreclosure process and the erroneous assumptions of large commercial loan servicers. As a result, lawyers for Oregon banks were forced to go back to the old practice of judicial foreclosures for most Oregon home loans.

So stay tuned. Coming up next....
 

Next post: To record or not to record—The fate of nonjudicial foreclosures after Niday.

Know Your Rights: Federal Appeals Court Rules That Lender Contractually Obligated to Offer Permanent Modification to Homeowner After Homeowner Fully Complied With Terms of Trial Peroid Plan

In a recent decision that could potentially impact every Oregon homeowner that is currently in or negotiating for a trial period loan modification (also known as a trial period plan or "TPP"), the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals recently ruled that Wells Fargo was contractually obligated to offer a permanent loan modification to a homeowner after the homeowner fully complied with the terms of their HAMP trial period plan. In Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, the Ninth Circuit reversed a California district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claims arising out of Wells Fargo's refusal to offer the plaintiff a permanent loan modification after the plaintiff made all of the required payments under the TPP. Wells Fargo (unsurprisingly) argued that the TPP was not a biding contract. However, the court rejected this argument and looked instead to the approach of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir.2012). In Wigod, the court held that banks were “required to offer permanent modifications to borrowers who completed their obligations under the TPPs, unless the banks timely notified those borrowers that they did not qualify for a HAMP modification.”  Citing Wigod, the 9th Circuit reasoned that the bank’s assertion that a TPP was not a contract would allow it to “turn an otherwise straightforward offer into an illusion." In other words, big banks can't treat loan modifications like a carrot on a stick. They can't offer you a loan modification conditioned on a promise that you pay a certain amount of money over a certain period of time, then proceed to take your money, then refuse to offer you a permanent loan modification because, well, they just don't want to do it.

The law simply does not work that way. 

In her concurring opinion, Judge Noonan seemed to echo this sentiment and wrote:

Wells Fargo drafted this document, and Wells Fargo must be held responsible for it. The document promises a substantial benefit to Corvello if he meets its terms. The document then makes these benefits illusory because they depend entirely on the will of Wells Fargo. To say, “I give $100 for your watch but I will decide whether I pay you $100” is not to make a contract but to engage in a flim-flam or, in plain words, to work a fraud. You promise so that the other will perform. You reserve your promise so that the promise is empty while you have gotten what you wanted from the promisee. 

No purpose was served by the document Wells Fargo prepared except the fraudulent purpose of inducing Corvello to make the payments while the bank retained the option of modifying the loan or stiffing him. “Heads I win, tails you lose” is a fraudulent coin toss. Wells Fargo did no better.” 

Wow. Thank you Judge Noonan.

Folks...this is a really big deal. For years, big banks have offered struggling homeowners trial period plans only to pull the plug on a permanent modification for a litany of reasons. Courts are finally calling big banks to the carpet on this practice by adopting the same line of reasoning that foreclosure defense law firms like ours have been asserting for some time....a contract is a contract. If a bank offers you a TPP and promises that you will get a permanent modification if you comply with the perms of a trial plan, then that is a binding promise. 

Bottom line?

If you have been denied a permanent modification after successfully completing a TPP, you should contact us at (503) 846-0707 or visit our dedicated foreclosure defense website. The help you need might be just a telephone call away.

Foreclosure 101: What do you mean I don't have a mortgage?

Understanding the foreclosure process in Oregon begins with understanding one very basic fact.

A basic fact that a surprisingly high percentage of homeowners do not realize until faced with foreclosure.

That basic fact is this:

If you bought property here in the great State of Oregon, it is almost certainly the case that...

You do not have a mortgage.

Surprised?

Then you are not alone.

************ 

When you close on a piece of residential property, there seem to be a staggering number of documents to sign. If you are reading this blog, you have probably been there, done that. You are directed to an enormous pile of official looking documents, handed a pen and asked to sign here, and here, and here, and here and here. This goes on for about an hour until you’re sitting there with writer’s cramp and a glazed look on your face completely befuddled about what you’re signing, why you’re signing it, and why it takes as stack of paper the size of a Volkswagen Beetle to buy something that doesn’t move.

We get it.  The process can be mind-numbing.

But at the end of day, all of these papers really boil down to two key documents.

A promissory note.

And a deed of trust.

 ************

A promissory note, in the simplest terms, is a glorified IOU. You (the borrower) promise to pay Big Evil Bank (the lender) the sum of X at an interest rate of Y in monthly payments of Z. That’s it. Pretty straight-forward.

But what happens if you don’t pay?

That’s where the second document comes in....a security instrument. A security instrument, in the simplest terms, is a document that “secures” your payment obligation under a promissory note by doing one of two things: (1) actually transferring title to the property to someone else until the promissory note is paid-in-full (known in the law as the “title theory” because title actually changes hands until the underlying obligation is satisfied) or (2) by creating a “lien” or “security interest” in the property until the promissory note is paid-in-full (known in the law as the “lien theory” because the borrower actually keeps title to the property subject to the borrower’s lien). Oregon is what is referred to a “lien-theory” state.” So when you purchase a home here in Oregon, you receive title to the property but then you immediately transfer a “security interest” (a lien) in the property to another party until the promissory note has been paid.

Understood? Very good.

Now here are the two $24 million questions. First, who holds this “security interest” while you’re paying off your loan? Second, and most importantly, what does holding a “security interest” in a piece of property lawfully allow you to do? Let’s address the first question.

Traditionally, the person (or entity) holding the “security interest” was the lender and the typical security instrument was a mortgage. A mortgage involved two parties. The mortgagee (the lender) held a security interest (a lien) in the property until the loan was fully paid by the borrower (the mortgagor). Upon full payment of the obligation, the lien was released and the homeowner would own the property free and clear.

In 1959, the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Trust Deed Act (OTDA). Unlike a mortgage, which involves a mortgagor (borrower) and a mortgagee (lender), a trust deed involves three parties: the “grantor” of the trust (the borrower), the “beneficiary” of the trust (the lender) and an independent trustee. When a borrower purchases a piece of property in Oregon using a trust deed as opposed to a mortgage, the borrower (1) receives title to the property but then concurrently executes a deed of trust which transfers a security interest to a trustee who then holds—”owns” if you will—this security interest for the benefit of the lender until the loan is fully paid or goes into default.

Since 1959, the security instrument of choice in Oregon has been the deed of trust, not a mortgage. Which brings us to the second question. What does holding a security interest in a piece of property lawfully allow the trustee of a trust deed to do in the event of a default?

The answer to this question lies in understanding the difference between a “judicial foreclosure” and a “non-judicial foreclosure” and how the OTDA dramatically changed the foreclosure process.

Next: The good, the bad and the ugly: Understanding foreclosures under the Oregon Trust Deed Act

Foreclosure 101: Inform yourself

Welcome to the Garland Griffiths Knaupp Foreclosure Defense 101 series.

Our series is designed to accomplish two important tasks.

Our first and most important goal is to provide timely and accurate information to homeowners facing foreclosure. Why is this so important? Because in the relatively new and constantly evolving field of “foreclosure defense” or “wrongful foreclosure” (phrases that were rarely if ever used in the law as recently as five years ago) information is key. Can there be anything more frightening than the specter of losing a home? Emotions run high; fueled typically (and understandably) by confusion, fear and uncertainty. Having a clear understanding of the foreclosure process—and of your rights and remedies under the law—is an important first step.

The second function of this series is to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the law. Why is this necessary? Because what “the law” is in the area of foreclosure defense is constantly changing. Judges and lawyers alike throughout our state are grappling with the complex and varied legal issues presented by an unprecedented housing crisis. No one can predict with absolute certainty what to expect. In just the past month, several state and federal court decisions (all of which will be analyzed in upcoming blogs) have greatly impacted the rights and remedies available to homeowners facing foreclosure. Our job is to break these decisions down and explain in plain and simple  terms what these decisions mean for struggling homeowners. This area of law is simply too important for public confusion. We will take the complex and make it clear.

So what can you expect from this series?

In sum, information and analysis.

The twin poles—the yin and yang if you will—of an informed and empowered public.

**********

Foreclosure 101 is designed to be a resource. However, please do not confuse a resource with legal advice. If you are a homeowner facing foreclosure, time is of the essence. Far too many people facing foreclosure respond by doing nothing. Fear and despair lead to inertia and inaction because desperate homeowners feel there is nothing they can do. But that is absolutely not the case.

There is something you can do.

You can call a lawyer.

We offer a one-hour foreclosure defense consultation for only $169.00. Because every case is fact specific, this consultation provides an invaluable opportunity for homeowners facing foreclosure to discuss the specific circumstances of their case with an attorney skilled in the area of foreclosure defense and to review the available range of options.

This is, in sum, an opportunity to inform yourself.

Thank you for visiting our blog. We hope you find our Foreclosure 101 series helpful.

Know Your Rights: Oregon's New Foreclosure Mediation Program Goes Live

The new Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program (OFAP) officially launched on August 5, 2013. The OFAP is the creation of Senate Bill 558, which overhauled the existing Foreclosure Avoidance Mediation Program (FAMP) in effect since July of 2012. Prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 558, mediation was not required if a lender filed a judicial foreclosure, a gaping loophole that effectively rendered the program meaningless. Why? Because lenders simply stopped using nonjudicial foreclosures (the most common and preferred method of foreclosing on property in Oregon for the past 50+ years) and simply resorted to judicial foreclosures instead.  As a result, less than two dozen mediations convened in the past year; hardly the intent that the Oregon legislature intended. Senate Bill 558 changes all this by eliminating the judicial foreclosure loophole and greatly streamlining the mediation process.

Under the new mediation program, before a lender can foreclose on a home – whether through a judicial (circuit court action) or nonjudicial (trustee sale) process – it must first offer a face-to-face meeting (resolution conference) with the homeowner in an attempt to avoid foreclosure when the instrument securing the loan is a residential trust deed. Homeowners at risk of foreclosure may also request a meeting. Homeowners are at risk when they are more than 30 days in default on their loan payment or when a government-approved housing counselor believes the homeowners have a qualifying financial hardship.

This new program will give most homeowners an opportunity to meet face-to-face with an agent of the lender who will have complete authority to negotiate and commit to a foreclosure avoidance measure. (Lenders who filed less than 175 foreclosures in the past year are exempt from the program). To initiate the process, homeowners must first meet with an approved housing counselor. Housing counselors will not only help homeowners initiate the process, they will also help homeowners evaluate their options and put together the best possible proposal for a foreclosure avoidance measure. There is no charge to the homeowner for working with an approved housing counselor. The homeowners must then pay a $175.00 fee (a fee reduction waiver is available for households making 200% or less of the federal poverty level), submit the documents required by the lender and personally attend the resolution conference.

The resolution conference will be an informal meeting conducted by a mediator, who is a neutral person trained in basic foreclosure issues. The homeowner can bring an attorney, a housing counselor, or both to the meeting. The lender must send an agent in person. If that person does not have complete authority, the lender must have a person with authority available by telephone. If the parties reach an agreement, the agreement will be reduced to writing and signed by both parties before the conference concludes.

For more information about the new mediation program, visit the official program website at www.foreclosuremediationor.org or our dedicated foreclosure defense website at garlandgriffiths.com.

For a list of approved housing counselors, visit www.oregonhomeownersupport.gov

Federal Foreclosure Settlement Payments Now Available

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (the Fed) reached a new agreement this year with several lenders that provides for aid to flow directly to homeowners. Mortgage loans that were serviced by Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, Morgan Stanley, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, US Bank, Wells Fargo, or any of the affiliates or subsidiaries of theses lenders are eligible for payments if a foreclosure was in process during 2009 or 2010.

How much are the payments? Payments between $300 and $125,000 have been authorized under the agreement. Many homeowners have already been contacted by RUST Consulting, the company responsible for distributing payments, informing them that they are eligible. Payment amounts are determined by a formula that takes into account the various types of improper foreclosure tactics borrowers may have been subjected to.

Homeowners that we represent have already begun receiving checks from the Independent Foreclosure Review Payment Agreement. Checks our clients have received have ranged in amount from $300 to $6,000.

What if my loan was serviced by someone else? EverBank/EverHome Mortgage Company, Financial Freedom (One West), GMAC Mortgage, and IndyMac Mortgage Services (One West) are still being reviewed. They are expected to begin making similar restitution distributions in the near future.  If your loan was not serviced by any of the above listed servicers, the federal settlement does not apply to your servicer, and your only recourse is to bring a private legal action, or file a complaint with regulatory agencies.

What do I need to know? RUST Consulting and the checks they are distribute are NOT a scam. You are entitled to the payments they send you and can cash the check. Also, you should be aware that by cashing a check from RUST Consulting you are NOT giving up your right to sue you lender for the damages they caused you during the foreclosure process. If you believe you have been subject to an illegal foreclosure or unfair trade practices you should contact us to discuss whether we can help you.

For further information please contact me or visit my website. If you live in Beaverton, Hillsboro, or Portland Oregon, give me a call with your questions or comments, or post a comment to this blog.

Tax Masters Fined $195 Million for Defrauding Clients

(c) 2012 Benjamin D. Knaupp
Attorney at Law
Admitted in Oregon since 1997

Finally, justice is served on Tax Masters! In an article today on Fox News, it was reported that Tax Masters, a well-known firm claiming to fix people's tax debts for pennies on the dollar, has been ordered to pay more than $195 million in penalties for defrauding its clients. The firm was shown to have lied to clients, misleading them as to work performed on their cases and had committed over 110,000 violations of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

As a tax attorney, I’ve spoken with several taxpayers who have paid good money to firms like Tax Masters for help with their tax problems, and had terrible experiences. While there may be some decent firms out there, taxpayers get much better service hiring a local tax attorney who is licensed right here in Oregon. I represent taxpayers in IRS audits, appeals of audits, and tax court cases.

I also represent taxpayers who have tax debts, and for most taxpayers with tax debts, there is no “silver bullet” that will allow me to reduce their tax debts. The opportunity to settle with the IRS for “pennies on the dollar” is very rare. Firms like Tax Masters have been misleading taxpayers with these promises for years, and its about time they be held accountable.

For further information please contact me or visit my website. You can also check out my article Why You Need A Licensed Tax Attorney to represent you. If you live in Beaverton, Hillsboro, or Portland Oregon, give me a call with your questions or comments, or post a comment to this blog.