Email Elizabethhomeowner bill of rights
A Solution to the War Between Two Short Sale Banks
You’ve got life easy if you’ve never had to talk to short sale banks. Be thankful for that. Man, I used to see myself as a person with little patience. That’s one of the reasons why I tried back in my 20’s to learn how to sew. I was under the impression that sewing a dress would teach me patience. You know, you’ve got to trace the pattern on the cloth, carefully cut it out and figure out how to attach the pieces without sewing them inside out or upside down.
My dress ended up in the trash can. It wasn’t disappointing to me. It was satisfaction.
However, over the years, I seem to have acquired patience. I have no idea where it came from. One day it wasn’t there and the next it was. I toyed with the thought that it’s possible aliens have taken over my mind or maybe the 1960s had some sort of long-lasting effects like those flashbacks that never materialized. Hard to say, but patience is absolutely required if a Sacramento real estate agent needs to negotiate a short sale.
The latest irritation that popped up this year, part of the aftermath from passing the Homeowner Bill of Rights, is when the first lender and the second lender refuse to see eye-to-eye about issuing short sale approval. I’m not issuing approval first, says the first lender, arms folded, you issue it. So, we try to reason with the second lender. I’m not issuing approval first, says the second lender, let the first lender go first. What reminds me of being back in grade school has been going on all year long. It’s enough to make an agent with less patience smack ’em.
I understand the reasoning. If the second issues approval, it shows the hand of how much it will accept from the first. Some second lenders would rather let the first make an offer of compensation. On the other hand, if the first issues approval, not only does it set the stage for compensation to the second, because it does not want to revise the approval, but it is also obligated to stop all foreclosure action. Yeah, that’s the real reason. Now the first can’t move forward with foreclosure, especially if it can’t come to an agreement on compensation to the second.
Short sale approval is the only part of the Homeowner Bill of Rights that protects a seller in the event of a short sale. Applying for a short sale offers zero protection, none. Protection is afforded only after the short sale approval.
One solution to get around this stalemate is to have one of the lenders issue approval for a short time period. The letter can contain a short expiration date, like 7 days to 10 days out. And, that’s exactly what happened in a West Sacramento short sale today.
There are always ways around a problem. If you’re looking for a patient Sacramento real estate agent who finds solutions, call Elizabeth Weintraub at 916 233 6759.
Cindy Amrine Case is No Test of the Homeowner Bill of Rights
An article that’s been making the rounds online — some with permission and some postings that were clearly just swiped from the Sacramento Bee — concerns a supposed violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights law regarding dual tracking. Now, not being your average Joe citizen, this Sacramento real estate agent has read the Homeowner Bill of Rights Law in its entirety. And not being a lawyer, my opinion of this law is not to be considered a legal opinion; instead, it’s just a logical interpretation that any rational person of normal intelligence would most likely draw.
The Sacramento Bee article is about a woman and her family in Citrus Heights who are being evicted because their home on Twin Park Drive was sold on the courthouse steps to a private investment group. The owner, Cindy Amrine (Sherr) hired a lawyer to file a lawsuit against Bank of America, claiming that the bank had no right to dual tracking because of the Homeowner Bill of Rights law.
I’m not saying that lawyers take big wads of cash to file lawsuits and get paid whether or not they win the case, because everybody knows that is a fact. In fact, in this instance, I might even go so far as to say the lawyer knows she won’t win but is filing the lawsuit in a sole attempt to get a settlement for her client. It’s true, sometimes banks will pay money to settle a lawsuit, even if the bank is not guilty. It’s the way our legal system works. One doesn’t have to be guilty to pay off a plaintiff. One can simply decide it’s less expensive to bribe the plaintiff to drop the lawsuit than it is to defend it.
What I find interesting about this case is that people are incorrectly assessing this case as a “test” of the Homeowner Bill of Rights law. That law says a bank is permitted to practice dual tracking during a short sale. It’s right there in black and white. The law also says dual tracking must stop after a short sale approval letter is received, but in this case, there was no short sale approval letter, according to the story in the Bee.
I researched the property history online. The home went on the market in early March. Toward the end of April, it went to Trustee’s Sale and the pending short sale canceled. The Notice of Default had been filed the summer of 2012. I can see where the short sale agent did not expect the home to be sold out from under the seller. But we all know — those of who work in short sales — that the foreclosure department of Bank of America has nothing to do with the short sale department. The departments don’t engage with each other.
For the uninitiated though, I offer this bit of trivia for you. The Homeowner Bill of Rights law stops dual tracking during a short sale beginning January 1, 2018. Read it and weep. I predict this lawsuit by Cindy Amrine will absolutely not change how short sales are handled in California, you can count on it, on all 10 fingers. It does bring awareness that dual tracking is wrong.
The Point of Contact in the Real Estate Business
One of the little perks given to homeowners in distress through the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, apart from restrictions on dual tracking, is the right to a single point of contact, what we refer to as the POC. That acronym stands for Punch on Chin. No, it doesn’t, it means Point of Contact; you just feel like punching them. It’s nothing to really get excited about because the POC is often pretty useless. It is a person assigned by the bank to answer the phone when a customer calls. I don’t know if that person physically works at the bank in person or lives in Canada but by golly, it’s a live person you can talk to each and every time you call, even if that person is worthless and no help to you whatsoever.
There are no provisions in the new law that says the POC needs to be knowledgable or carry any authority. The POC doesn’t process your file; the POC accesses a computer database where supposedly notes are stored to glean information. As a Sacramento short sale agent who has worked with hundreds of bank negotiators over the years, I can tell you that much of the data that is not always entered correctly. But by George, you’ve got a live person on the phone. That’s a remarkable feat.
More than half of the time, the information the POC gives to a customer of the bank is incomplete or incorrect. I know this because my client will call to say the POC told her, for example, that the hardship letter is not in the file. Not only is the hardship letter in the file, but it’s at Fannie Mae for review. Along with all of the other docs such as the bank statements and tax returns the POC also says are missing. That’s because I am talking to the person who is processing the file. I am speaking to the short sale bank negotiator while the seller is talking to a POC — a POC who would dig through her bag to find an unwrapped Tootsie Roll pop and plop the thing in her mouth without washing it off.
I had a bank offer me a credit card a while back that would cost me $100 a year. At first blush, I rejected the idea because I am not that interested in accumulating points or cash-back bonuses as I always pay my bills in full and never carry a balance. However, the icing on the cake offered by the bank was not really the cash-back bonuses. It was the fact that I could talk to a real live person who would answer the phone through a direct phone number. That is now a luxury today! To be able to call a person directly and have said person answer the phone without punching through a menu or sitting on hold or talking to other doofuses.
There is little more frustrating than screaming Operator at a recorded message and hearing the reply: Did you say: Call Back Later?
The personal touch is missing from so much in business today. You can’t talk to anybody anymore. I was looking for a small business to help me over the weekend, and I was searching online. Most of the websites were geared to the company and not an individual. I don’t want to do business with a company. People do business with other people. That’s why my website features me because that’s what people want. My website is more than a search engine for homes in Sacramento. And I answer my phone. If you need a sharp real estate agent in the Sacramento area, you can call Elizabeth Weintraub 916-233-6759, and THAT, I promise, will make you happy.
