7 Places Your 2013 Down Payment Might be Hiding

By Tara-Nicholle Nelson
If buying a home is on your New Year’s Resolution list for 2013, know this: your biggest challenge will almost certainly be coming up with your down payment and closing costs. 

Whether you’re trying to scrape by with 3.5 percent for an FHA loan or you’re planning to put down a full 20 percent, saving for a down payment might be
the largest savings endeavor you ever undertake, after retirement planning.

But don’t let that daunt you. Look at it as more of a challenge or a game than a slow-slogging deprivation-driven chore. In fact, I suggest that you add something to your scrounging and saving:
scavenging. Finding your down payment money hidden in resources that are right in front of you can be a fruitful and fun angle to take on an otherwise overwhelming goal.

Use this short list of oft-untapped down payment treasure troves to open your eyes to funds that might be hidden in plain sight:
Click here

6 Things Everyone Should Do When Moving Into a New House Read more: http://www.houselogic.com/blog/

1. Change the locks. You really don’t know who else has keys to your home, so change the locks. That ensures you’re the only person who has access. Install new deadbolts yourself for as little as $10 per lock, or call a locksmith — if you supply the new locks, they typically charge about $20-$30 per lock for labor.

Read more: http://www.houselogic.com/blog/maintenance-repair/things-to-do-when-moving-into-a-new-house/?nicmp=dfsocial&nichn=hlfb&niseg=20121007_newhouse#ixzz28iGnTXmS

Keep water clean. Wash your car on grass or gravel.

http://www.simplesteps.org/mmm/keep-water-clean-wash-your-car-grass-or-gravel


Inmates Get $9.1 Million in Home Buyer Credits

Inmates Get $9.1 Million in Home Buyer Credits
More than 1,200 prison inmates, including 241 serving life sentences, applied for and received first-time hom ebuyer tax credits, according to a Treasury Department report released Wednesday.

Treasury said many filed multiple claims, even some outside the alloted time persiod, and received help from paid preparers. Altogether they fraudulently received $9.1 million in tax credits with $1.7 million going to prison lifers.

The report also identified 2,555 filers who received $17.6 million for homes that they purchased before the tax credit program began. It flagged 206 filers who sought credits on multiple properties and were awarded $1.4 million.

In addition, 34 employees of the IRS were nabbed for filing illegally for the credit.

Source: CNNMoney, Aaron Smith (05/23/2010)
 


CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE DAY IN ANAHEIM

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media contact:  Ruth Ruiz, (714) 765-5060 office, (714) 420-7797 cell 
 
CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE DAY IN ANAHEIM
 
ANAHEIM, Calif.  (June 25, 2010) – As we look forward to celebrating our nation’s Independence Day, the City of Anaheim would like to invite residents and visitors to the 22nd annual Freedom Celebration festivities at Peralta Park (115 N. Pinney Drive in east Anaheim), and Canyon High School (220 S. Imperial Hwy. in east Anaheim) hosted by the City of Anaheim, Canyon Hills Community Council and the Anaheim Hills Rotary Club.  Please note, this year all Freedom Celebration festivities will be held on July 3.
 
Independence Day activities will begin bright and early with the Mary Castle Memorial 21st Annual “Firecracker” 5/10K Run – 2K Walk and Product/Health Fair at Canyon High School. Registration is available online at www.active.com through June 28. Registration and check-in for the 10K Run will begin at 5 a.m., with the run scheduled to begin at 6 a.m. Registration and check-in for the 5K Run and 2K Walk will begin at 5:30 a.m., with a 7:30 a.m. start time. The Walk/Run is limited to 1,500 participants. All proceeds from the event will benefit Canyon Hills Community Council July 4th fireworks, dog show, and family events. Registration and packet pick-up will also be available on July 1, 9 a.m.-7 p.m. at the Anaheim Downtown Community Center (250 E. Center St.) as well as July 2, 9 a.m.-7 p.m. at the East Anaheim Community Center (8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd.). Runners will receive a $2 discount to this year’s Pancake Breakfast.
 
The Pancake Breakfast is sponsored by the Anaheim Hills Rotary Club and will be held in the Canyon High School Cafeteria. Adults ($4) and children under 12 ($3) can enjoy pancakes, sausage, orange juice and fresh coffee between 8 - 10 a.m. Proceeds will benefit the annual July 4th Celebration.
 
The Yankee Doodle Dog Show will be held at 10 a.m. at Canyon High School. There are six fabulous categories: Best Dressed Dog, Cutest Dog (35 lb. and under), Best Trick, Owner/Doggie Look-a-like, Bigger Cutest Dog (36 lb. and over) and Yankee Doodle Dog. The entry fee is $10 per dog for the first category entered and $5 for each additional category. Registration will begin at 9 a.m. at the event site.
 
Bring your family, friends and neighbors to enjoy the food and games at Peralta Park starting at 12:30. Entertainment for the evening will begin at 6 p.m. in the park and Pyro-Spectacular will start their dazzling annual fireworks show at 9 p.m.
 
Please note, there will not be a parade associated with the event this year.
 
Residents can begin celebrating Independence Day early this year with a free Patriotic Choir Concert and Ice Cream Social that will be held on Saturday, June 26 at 7 p.m. at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (441 S. Fairmont Blvd).
 
The City’s 311 Call Center will be open special holiday hours on Sunday, July 4, from 8 p.m. – 12 a.m.  Dial 3-1-1 if telephoning from within the city limits, or 714-765-4311.  Please reserve 911 calls for emergencies only.
 
For more information please visit www.anaheim.net.
 

Loan-modification dropouts rise

10:00 PM PDT on Monday, May 17, 2010

 

By ALAN ZIBEL
The Associated Press

 

The number of homeowners dropping out of the Obama administration's main mortgage assistance plan is growing, and is now almost equal to the number who have received permanent relief.

The Treasury Department's report Monday was the latest evidence of problems in the administration's $75 billion program. While officials insist the program is helping the housing market turn around, critics say it is merely delaying an inevitable surge in foreclosures.

More than 299,000 homeowners had received permanent loan modifications as of last month, Treasury said. That's about 25 percent of the 1.2 million who started the program since its March 2009 launch. They are paying, on average, $516 less each month.

However, the number of people who started the process but failed to get their mortgages permanently modified rose dramatically in April.

To complete the program, borrowers must make at least three payments on time. About 277,000 homeowners, or 23 percent of those enrolled, have dropped out during this trial phase. That's up from about 155,000 a month earlier, or a 79 percent increase.

Many borrowers are still stuck in limbo, unable to complete the process and caught up in an often-bewildering bureaucracy.

"These mortgage companies have to get it together," said Henrietta Thompson, housing coordinator with United Family Services in Charlotte, N.C. "We're not getting anything done."

Treasury officials acknowledge that long delays have been a problem.

"Homeowners are waiting. We want them to get answers as rapidly as possible," said Herbert Allison, an assistant Treasury secretary.

After a one-year struggle with JPMorgan Chase & Co., Giselle Embry, 56, of Escondido, was finally able to get a loan modification through the program.

"They kept calling me and asking me to send the same things," she said. "I felt like they just wanted to run me around until I got so frustrated that I gave up."

Embry fell behind on her mortgage. An illness forced her to go on disability for six months and her hours as a career adviser were shortened because of state budget cuts. Her new loan payment is $622 a month, more than half of her initial payment.

A Chase spokeswoman declined to comment on Embry's case. She said the bank has hired 9,000 workers to handle foreclosure cases, opened 51 centers around the country where borrowers can meet with bank officials and held foreclosure prevention events around the country.

The program is designed to lower borrowers' monthly payments by reducing mortgage rates to as low as 2 percent for five years and extending loan terms to as long as 40 years.

There have been problems from the start. One of the big ones: Initially, many of the participating banks allowed borrowers to state their income verbally and provide proof of their income later. That jammed up the system as many borrowers didn't provide a complete set of documents, and some complained that their information was lost.

The mortgage companies that required homeowners to provide proof of their incomes have had a much better track record. HomEq Servicing Inc. and Ocwen Financial Corp. were able to convert more than 80 percent of their participating borrowers to permanent status, according to the Treasury Department.

By contrast, the four largest banks in the program have been far less successful. Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. have successfully processed about 25 percent of their applications. JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup Inc. have been able to convert 22 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of their applicants to permanent status.

Treasury officials have directed lenders to shift to a new system. Starting with loan modifications that go into effect June 1, they are required to collect two recent pay stubs at the start of the process.

Housing analysts are also watching the number of borrowers who drop out after completing the program.


Tom Tait wants to hear Colony issues!

Tom Tait wants to hear Colony issues!

If you do not know who Tom Tait is, you should. Tom is running for Mayor and he will most likely win. This being said he contacted me a few weeks ago and expressed concern over knowing what issues are a concern here in the Colony. I suggested that we have a meet and greet and he happily accepted.  So, here is your invite!

Bring a friend, bring a neighbor! Tom Tait meet and greet June 23rd, 6:30pm at The Shigo home (510 N.  Clementine St.) Food and drink shall be provided!

I suggest that you come with questions!

Here is a little info on Tom:

FORMER COUNCILMAN TOM TAIT ANNOUNCES CAMPAIGN FOR MAYOR OF ANAHEIM “OVERWHELMED BY ENDORSEMENTS”

Anaheim, CA – Former Anaheim City Councilman Tom Tait announced today his candidacy for the office of Mayor in the City of Anaheim.

Tom Tait was appointed to fill a vacancy on the City Council in 1995 and was elected to the post in 1996. He was unopposed in his re-election in 2000 and left the City Council in 2004. He has also served the residents of Anaheim as a Budget Commissioner, a Planning Commissioner and as the City representative to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

Mr. Tait has received unprecedented early support for his campaign from local and regional leaders. Among his endorsements are current Mayor Curt Pringle, Congressmen Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher & John Campbell, Supervisors Pat Bates, Bill Campbell, Chris Norby & Janet Nguyen, State Senator Bob Huff, State Assemblyman Jim Silva and former State Senators John Lewis and Dick Ackerman. 

“I am humbled and overwhelmed by endorsements that have poured in from so many leaders of Anaheim and Orange County”, Tom Tait said. “I will work to the best of my ability to be worthy of this support and I will work hard to gain the trust of the residents of Anaheim both as a candidate and as the Mayor of our great City. I believe that I served the City well in the past and I look forward to bringing my experience and business knowledge back to the City Council.” 

While endorsing Tom Tait for Mayor, current Mayor Curt Pringle made the following comment, “I have known Tom for many years and I have the greatest respect for him. Anaheim is a vibrant community and Tom is the best possible person to continue our new tradition of maintaining Anaheim as a ‘freedom friendly’ city.” 

As a councilman, Tom was known for his passion for freedom, an acute sense of fiscal accountability and his ability to work with the community and civic leaders to make Anaheim a better place to live and do business. 

Tom holds a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA and a Law degree from Vanderbilt University. 

Tom is President of an Environmental and Civil Engineering firm based in Orange County. He and his wife Julie reside in Anaheim and have four children.


Anaheim Colony Cares Red Cross Blood Drive June 8th 2-8pm

Please join us June 8th from 2pm-8pm for the Anaheim Colony Cares Red Cross Blood Drive! Location: 510 N. Clementine Street, Anaheim.

Make your appointment today!

All  donors will need to log onto www.redcrossblood.org and enter C21S as the sponsor code (on the left hand side of the screen there is a navy blue button that says “Enter a Sponsor Code”), as well as their name, address and phone number.  When they have completed this section, they will follow the prompts to schedule their appointment.

 


Local REALTOR® Obtains e-PROÒ Certification

Local REALTOR® Obtains e-PROÒ Certification

To Provide Consumers With State-of-the-Art Services

 

July 29, 2009 As more and more consumers begin their search for real estate-related information on the Internet, it is critical that real estate professionals stay on top of the latest technology for the benefit of consumers and real estate practitioners alike. The e-PROÒ Technology Certification Program fills that need.

 

Realizing the importance of technology training, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) created a comprehensive Technology Certification course in 2000. And now that course, e-PROÒ, has been completely updated to include information on Social Media and Web 2.0 aspects that is, and will continue, to change the real estate business.

 

“The real estate industry has undergone a fundamental change over the past five years,” Meghan Shigo said. “Today, more than 85% of all buyers and sellers begin their search online. As an e-PROÒ certified agent, I have knowledge and tools needed to provide my clients with the information they need and the customer service they demand. It’s both hi-tech and hi-touch.”

 

The all new e-PROÒ certification course -- the only technology certification program offered by NAR -- is designed to prepare real estate professionals to make the most of Internet technology and to identify, evaluate, and implement new Internet business models. The elite group of course graduates represents only four percent of all REALTORSÒ in the country including Meghan Shigo of Century 21 Superstars.

 

The PROÒ certification course is an educational program unlike any other professional certification or designation course available, comprehensive and interactive. It is specifically designed to provide real estate professionals with the technology tools needed to assist consumers in the purchase or sale of a home.

 

The exclusive e-PROÒ certification course is presented entirely online and certifies real estate agents and brokers as Internet professionals. The course is designed to help REALTORSÒ stay at the leading edge of technology and identify, evaluate and implement new Internet business models.

 

Once completed, the e-PROÒ certified real estate professional joins the ranks of a special community of highly skilled and continuously trained professionals who provide high quality and innovative online-based real estate services.  Consumers can identify the e-PROÒ through the exclusive e-PROÒ Internet Professional logo.

 

Both the content and the delivery platform were created by the San Diego-based technology company InternetCrusade®. Graduates use the skills they've acquired to provide clients information on properties for sale, local communities, and the local real estate market.

 

For more information, e-mail Meghan Shigo at MeghanShigo@gmail.com or call 714-273-1381

 

 

 


Should historic homes participating in the Mills Act be allowed to install synthetic lawn?

Hot Topic! Should historic homes participating in the Mills Act be allowed to install synthetic lawns? Do you have a better idea? I would love to hear your thoughts!


DRE License Number Must Be On Solicitation Materials (Effective July 1, 2009)

Thursday, July 09, 2009

The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) has recently adopted a new regulation clarifying the law that requires DRE license numbers on business cards and all other solicitation materials intended to be the first point of contact with consumers. The licensing law came into effect on July 1, 2009 as we previously reported.

Under the new section 2773 regulation adopted by the DRE, the solicitation materials that must contain the license identification number include the following items:

  • Business cards;
  • Stationery;
  • Websites owned, controlled, and/or maintained by the soliciting real estate license; and
  • Promotional and advertising flyers, brochures, email and regular mail, leaflets, and any other marketing or promotional materials designed to solicit the creation of a professional relationship between the licensee and a consumer, or intended to induce a consumer to contact the licensee about any licensed services.
DRE's new regulation also states that the following items are not solicitation materials under the license number requirement:

  • Advertisements in electronic media, including radio, cinema, and television ads, and the opening section of streaming video and audio;
  • Print advertising in any newspaper or periodical; and
  • "For Sale" signs placed on or around a property intended to alert the public the property is available for purchase or lease.
  • The eight-digit DRE license number must be in a type size no smaller than the smallest type size used in the solicitation material. If the name of more than one licensee appears in the solicitation, then each person's license number must be disclosed. However, the license number of employing brokers or corporate brokers whose names, logos, or trademarks appear on solicitation materials along with the names and license numbers of licensed employees or broker-associates, need not appear on those materials.
In addition to solicitation materials, a licensee's DRE license number must also be disclosed on real property purchase agreements when the licensee is acting as an agent in those transactions. C.A.R.'s standard form purchase agreements already conform to this new requirement.

Sources: California Business & Professions Code section 10140.6 (filed September 25, 2008); Section 2773 of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulation (filing with the Secretary of State still pending).

Disturbing Case that Expands a Seller’s Duty to Disclose Prior Litigation

Prior Litigation is a Material Fact Within the Seller’s Duty to Disclose

Brokers and agents should take special note of the February 2009 decision of the California Court of Appeal in Calemine v. Samuelson. The Los Angeles County trial court ruled that Walter Samuelson, the seller of a condominium purchased by Calemine, met his burden of disclosure of facts regarding the existence of previous water intrusion. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the seller was obligated to disclose the existence of two lawsuits relating to that water intrusion 20 years prior, even though the repairs had been undertaken.

The facts seller knew —
In 1983, Samuelson and his wife bought a newly constructed 3-story condominium unit (“condo”) in a multi-building condominium development. The lower level of the condo was a garage and bonus room. Samuelson was aware of construction defects and water intrusion in the complex and in his unit.

During the time Samuelson lived in the condo:
  • He observed intermittent incidents of water intrusion and flooding in the lower level of the condo.
  • He was a plaintiff along with the HOA and other unit owners in a 1986 construction defect lawsuit filed against the developer (first lawsuit).
  • He knew that the repairs made after settlement of the first lawsuit were not effective throughout the development.
  • He served on the HOA board as president from March 1993 to June 1994, and as treasurer from June 1994 to April 2001.
  • He received the 1997 reports estimating the waterproofing repair costs at over $1m.
  • He knew that the HOA received $410,000 from the early 1998 settlement of the second lawsuit
  • He knew that the HOA accepted the lowest bid (by CHI for $119,800) to do repairs to the complex common area and individual units after settlement of the second lawsuit.
  • He knew that the CHI’s proposal cautioned that “this is only one phase only of our due diligence in attempting to mitigate the water intrusion problem being encountered at this time. This proposal will only solve a portion of the problem. The remaining work is necessary to mitigate fully.”
  • He knew that after CHI’s repair work was completed in November 1998, CHI wrote to him in care of the HOA that the “next proposed phase of work will apparently involve clean up, patching, painting and ‘band-aid’ covering up of existing subterranean garage and storage room walls.”
  • He knew that CHI confirmed discussions with HOA board members that “we can take no responsibility nor give any guarantees whatsoever, that the water penetration issues, through the retaining walls, will be controlled or corrected, due to the existing hydrostatic pressures…, or any other issues relating to dampness, as we are not addressing these issues in the garage/storage contract.”
  • He knew that after the second repairs were completed, occasionally damp spots would appear on the garage floor during periods of heavy rain.
The disclosures seller made --
In the fall of 2001, Samuelson and Calemine negotiated for the sale of the condo and Samuelson signed a real estate transfer disclosure statement (TDS) in which he stated he was aware of “[f]looding, drainage or grading problems” and added the notation “[h]eavy rains below ground walls & slab.” He explained that water came up through the cracks in the garage slab approximately five to six times during the almost twenty years he lived in the condo. Samuelson did not disclose the litigation in the TDS, and he never mentioned the lawsuits during the two or three conversations he had with Calemine during the transaction, because he believed he was obligated only to disclose pending actions. The listing agent completed the agent section of the TDS by stating: “Water damage noted in garage. Buyer is urged to get a physical inspection from a licensed contractor.”

In May 2002, Calemine obtained an inspection report that revealed evidence of below grade leakage in the garage south and west walls, moisture bubbling & efflorescence at below grade foundation walls and staining along hairline floor cracks in garage, and moisture staining at base boards in the bonus room. The report said: “Status of leakage cannot be visually ascertained.” The report recommended further investigation and contact with the seller for status/information to determine if repairs had been or would be made, which would typically be an H.O.A. repair.

In June 2002, Calemine obtained a termite report which also noted that the garage area had excessive moisture-damaged drywall and plaster, the source of which appears to be from soil abutting a retaining wall. The termite report noted that other contractors had installed additional concrete and drainage in the past, and that there was no moisture evident at the time of inspection.

Calamine contacted Samuelson for an explanation. According to Calamine, Samuelson stated: “We’ve had some water intrusion near the bottom of this wall and up through the slab and the homeowners association came in. They dug out around the patio areas, waterproofed the wall, put in French drains. Then inside the garage—on the outside they dug down the wall, exposed the wall, waterproofed the wall put French drains in. Put the dirt back in. Rebuilt the patios. On the inside of the unit they waterproofed the walls and put these drywall—you know, drywall in those areas. Haven’t had a problem since. Problem solved.” According to Samuelson, he stated that there had been some water damage “and we weren’t having it anymore, it had been fixed.”

On the basis of Samuelson’s explanation, Calemine believed the water intrusion problem was a minor issue. Escrow closed in July 2002 and the Calemines moved into the condo.

The floods that came –
In January 2005, the condo garage flooded and it flooded again in March 2005 and in January and April 2006. After the first flood, Calemine learned that there had been two lawsuits, that the HOA had received a recovery from the developer in the first lawsuit and made repairs, that the repairs were ineffective, that a second lawsuit was settled with the contractor, and additional repairs were made.

The lawsuit buyer filed –
The Calemines filed a lawsuit against Samuelson in August 2005, alleging that:
  • he breached his duty to make full and complete disclosures of past actions,
  • he failed to disclose he was a member of the HOA board at the time of the second lawsuit, and
  • he failed to describe the repairs made after the second lawsuit.
Samuelson asked the court to throw the case out, because the undisputed evidence showed that:
  • Calemines were aware of all material facts relating to the water intrusion;
  • he did not make any representations that were knowingly false;
  • the TDS imposed no duty on him to disclose the specific facts that Calemines claimed were omitted or concealed, including the scope of prior repairs, the decision to implement limited repairs, the existence of nonpending lawsuits and the settlement of a lawsuit.
The Calemines argued that the court should decide whether the information Samuelson provided to them in the TDS was incomplete, misleading or inaccurate. The trial court agreed with Samuelson finding “that there was sufficient disclosure of defects by moving defendant Walter Samuelson.”

The duty to disclose –
A seller of real property has a common law and a statutory duty of disclosure. The courts have established the common law duty that where the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property and also knows that such facts are not known to or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. Undisclosed facts are material if they would have a significant and measurable effect on market value. Once the essential facts are disclosed, a seller is not under a duty to provide details that would merely serve to elaborate on the disclosed facts. Failure to disclose a material fact, may subject the seller to liability because his conduct in the transaction amounts to a representation of the nonexistence of the facts he failed to disclose. Whether the undisclosed fact is of sufficient materiality to have affected the value or desirability of the property is a “question of fact” for the court or jury to decide.

The California Civil Code establishes a residential seller’s statutory duty to disclose. The statutory duty does not alter a seller’s common law duty of disclosure, but makes the required disclosures specific and clear. Civil Code section 1102.6 mandates the precise disclosure form which must be used which requires a seller to answer whether he or she is “aware of any significant defects/malfunctions” in the slabs and sidewalks, and whether he or she is aware of “[f]looding, drainage or grading problems” and “[a]ny lawsuits by or against the Seller threatening to or affecting this real property, including lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency in this real property or ‘common areas’ (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas, co-owned in undivided interest with others).” Furthermore, Civil Code section 1102.7 requires Seller to make each disclosure in “good faith,” defined as “honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction.”

The appellate court decisions –
The appellate court found that the Samuelson’s disclosures, on the TDS and orally, concerning the existence of water intrusion were adequate and made in good faith, and that there was no evidence that Samuelson had any reason to doubt the accuracy of his representation that the repairs had resolved the problem in the condo garage, i.e., there had been no water intrusion for several years prior to the sale to Calemine. Further information concerning the type and scope of repairs made is within the category of “elaboration” that the courts have determined is not part of a seller’s duty of disclosure.

However, the appellate court found that Samuelson’s disclosures concerning the existence of the lawsuits was within his duty to disclose information materially affecting the value or the desirability of the property. The court said, “case law holds that while disclosure of the details of a lawsuit alleging defects in the property need not be disclosed, a seller’s duty of disclosure encompasses disclosure of the existence of such a lawsuit.” The court cited a decision in another case and explained that once the seller has satisfied its duty of disclosure by informing the buyer of the existence of the litigation and its settlement, “the details of the suit were certainly within the diligent attention of the buyer, who could have examined the file in its entirety to learn all the details of the suit and its settlement.”

Samuelson failed to disclose to Calemine the existence of either the first or second lawsuit, which disclosure would have enabled Calemine to examine the details of those actions and evaluate their purchase in light of information including that the water intrusion had existed since the condominium was built, repairs throughout the complex were twice ineffective, and the CHI repairs were made on a budget governed by the amount of the second lawsuit settlement. Without Samuelson’s disclosure of the existence of the lawsuits, these matters were not within appellants’ diligent attention. The existence of the two lawsuits was material, because Calemine stated that they would not have purchased the condo had they known about the prior lawsuits.

The case was sent back to the trial court for determination whether Samuelson was obligated to disclose the existence of the lawsuits as a material fact affecting the desirability and value of the condo.

What this case means for brokers
This case is important to real estate brokers when selling a home where there was a lawsuit about alleged damage to the property. Simply disclosing the damage is not sufficient. The broker must also disclose the existence of the lawsuit, even if it was 20 years ago and the defects have been repaired without further problems! Failure to do so may result in another lawsuit – one against the broker!

Author:  Sylvia J. Simmons, Attorney, Giardinelli & Duke, APC.

Expect little change from new moratorium...from Foreclosureradar.com

Lots of calls today from folks wanting the scoop on the "new moratorium" here in California. Seems that some have misinterpreted the new law and believe that it may have a big impact.

The new law adds 90 days to the existing 3 months between the filing of a notice of default and a notice of trustee sale, but exempts servicers (lenders) who put in place a loan modification program.

Overall the law makes little sense to me. Why our legislators are pushing lenders so hard to lockvhomeowners in a prison of debt and delay the inevitable is beyond me, but much like SB1137 last year, they are once again back at it with another attempt to force loan mods that I believe will again fail to make any real difference.

We expect most lenders have at least applied for an exemption from this law by submitting their loan mod program. As such we expect no immediate change in foreclosure activity. Even if the state gets tough and denies the servicers application for the exemption, those servicers have a chance to resubmit, and the mortatorium still won't apply to them for 30 days after the denial.

The moratorium also applies only to owner occupied ifrst mortgages made between 2003 and 2007, though that is the majority of foreclosures we see today.

Bottom line - if we see any impact at all it likely won't be until August or September. But these payment based loan mods are largely better for servicers than homeowners, so I can't imagine that servicers won't at least put a program in place. We will of course keep an eye on it.

For the complete details see the bill itself: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx2_7_bill_20090220_chaptered.pdf


PWR Charity Foundation Announces New HOA Dues Assistance Program

PWR Charity Foundation Adds New HOA Dues Assistance to "Opening Doors" First Time Home Buyer Program. The application period for both programs will begin on June 1, 2009.

Adding a new feature to the existing Down Payment Assistance Program, Opening Doors the Pacific West Association of REALTORS® (PWR) Charity Foundation is now offering one year home owners’ association dues (HOA) to qualified first time home buyers.

“Oftentimes, HOA dues can present a barrier to first time buyers. We are proud to have raised enough money to include an HOA dues assistance program this year, in addition to the down payment assistance grants that we will award,” said Michael DeLeon, President of the PWR Charity Foundation Board.

Applications for both first time buyer programs will begin June 1. Applicants must purchase a property within the PWR coverage areas of southern LA and northern Orange counties.

The PWR Charity Foundation has awarded more than 30 southern California families with down payment assistance since the program’s inception in 2007.

http://www.pwr.net/PWRToday/Reports/Default.aspx?ReportID=40&HTML-Link=False


The Basics: 2009 First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit

Bringing the Dream of Homeownership Within Reach

As part of its plan to stimulate the U.S. housing market and address the economic challenges facing our nation, Congress has passed legislation that grants a tax credit of up to $8,000 to first-time home buyers.

Here is more information about how the 2009 First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit can help prospective home buyers become part of the American dream.

Breaking news: HUD: Home Buyer Tax Credit Loans Still on Track (REALTOR® Magazine)

Who Qualifies?

First-time home buyers who purchase homes between January 1, 2009 and December 1, 2009.

To qualify as a “first-time home buyer” the purchaser or his/her spouse may not have owned a residence during the three years prior to the purchase.

Which Properties Are Eligible?

The 2009 First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit may be applied to primary residences, including: single-family homes, condos, townhomes, and co-ops.

How Much Will the Credit Be?

The maximum allowable credit for home buyers is $8,000. Each home buyer’s tax credit is determined by two factors:

The price of the home—the credit is equal to 10% of the purchase price of the home, up to $8,000.

The buyer's income—single buyers with incomes up to $75,000 and married couples with incomes up to $150,000—may receive the maximum tax credit.

If the Buyer(s)’ Income Exceeds These Limits, Can He/She Still Get a Credit?

Yes, some buyers may still be eligible for the credit.

The credit decreases for buyers who earn between $75,000 and $95,000 for single buyers and between $150,000 and $170,000 for home buyers filing jointly. The amount of the tax credit decreases as his/her income approaches the maximum limit. Home buyers earning more than the maximum qualifying income—over $95,000 for singles and over $170,000 for couples are not eligible for the credit.

Will the Tax Credit Need to Be Repaid?

No. The buyer does not need to repay the tax credit, if he/she occupies the home for three years or more. However, if the property is sold during the three-year period, the credit will be recouped on the sale.


**source Realtor.com


The City of Anaheim is providing homebuyer down payment assistance up to $125,000 ...4/19/09

The City of Anaheim is providing homebuyer down payment assistance up to $125,000 for the purchase and rehabilitation of qualified foreclosed homes in Anaheim. Properties must be located within qualified census tract areas. Funding is limited and preference is given to households...

Go to this link for more info:

http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=1885

For additional questions you may contact us at:

Housing Services Agency
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 1001
Anaheim, CA 92805

or call us direct at 714.765.4340


Mortgage Protection Program

On Thursday, April 2, 2009 the Housing Affordability Fund has  launched a new program designed to provide peace of mind to first-time buyers who are hesitant to enter the housing market due to concerns about potential job loss, and subsequently being unable to meet their monthly mortgage obligations.
     To qualify for the Mortgage Protection Program,
      Applicants must:

  ·  Be a first-time home buyer – someone who has not owned a home in the last three years.
  ·  Open escrow April 2, 2009, or later, and close on or before Dec. 31, 2009
  ·  Use a California REALTOR® in the transaction
  ·  Purchase the property in California
  ·  Be a W-2 employee (cannot be self-employed)

Submitted by Susan Klaren:

Susan Klaren-Hatzenbuhler

Loan Officer

Prospect Mortgage

Cell: (714) 264-0876

Fax: (866) 358-6221   Email: Susan.Klaren@prospectmtg.com


WOMAN WHO PROMISED TO HELP HOMEOWNERS AVOID FORECLOSURE SENTENCED TO OVER 12 YEARS IN PRISON FOR TAK

Return to the 2009 Press Release Index
Release No. 09-004

January 20, 2009

WOMAN WHO PROMISED TO HELP HOMEOWNERS AVOID FORECLOSURE SENTENCED TO OVER 12 YEARS IN PRISON FOR TAKING MILLIONS FROM INVESTORS IN FRAUDULENT SCHEME

The promoter of an $18 million real estate investment scheme that targeted African-American individuals in Southern California and other states was sentenced
today to 151 months in federal prison.

Jeanetta M. Standefor, a 40-year-old resident of Altadena, California, was sentenced in Los Angeles federal court by United States District Judge Percy Anderson. In addition to the prison term, Judge Anderson ordered Standefor to pay $8,688,924.

Through her Pasadena-based company, Accelerated Funding Group (AFG), Standefor operated a bogus "foreclosure reinstatement" program that attracted more than 600 investors between 2005 and 2007. The scheme purported to use investors' funds to cure defaults on distressed properties about to be put into foreclosure. While soliciting investor money and promising returns of up to 50 percent in time periods as short as one month, Standefor and AFG were instead operating a Ponzi scheme that used money from new investors to pay previous investors.

Standefor pleaded guilty in September 2008 to two counts of mail fraud.

"Ms. Standefor exploited the housing crisis for her own benefit with false promises of help for troubled homeowners and fictitious profits for those willing to help,” said United States Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien. “While there are legitimate companies that work with distressed homeowners, investors and mortgage holders must carefully consider any offer of assistance, particularly when there are suspicious promises that seem too good to be true.”

 Standefor’s fraud was what is commonly called “affinity fraud,” that is, a fraud directed at a particular community. Standefor and AFG targeted investors in the African-American community through a now-defunct Web site, word of mouth, real estate seminars and testimonials by other seemingly successful African-American investors.

Standefor claimed investor funds would be used to assist owners of distressed properties. Written materials put out by AFG touted its foreclosure reinstatement program as "virtually risk-free" and promised investors that their principal would be safely returned within 72 hours at their request. However, Standefor and AFG did not use investor funds to cure defaults on any residential properties, and investors' requests for return of their investments were ignored.

Standefor used more than $1.9 million of investor funds for personal expenses, such as her lavish wedding and honeymoon, cars, jewelry, tickets to entertainment events and home renovations.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In conjunction with the indictment against Standefor, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action against Standefor and AFG. The SEC obtained a default against Standefor and AFG on September 18, 2008.


Fannie Mae Extends Foreclosure Sale and Eviction Suspension : January 8, 2009

January 8, 2009
Fannie Mae Extends Foreclosure Sale and Eviction Suspension

WASHINGTON, DC -- Fannie Mae (FNM/NYSE) today announced that it would extend the suspension of foreclosure sales and evictions from single-family properties through January 31, 2009.

This action will enable the company to work with mortgage servicers to further implement the Streamlined Modification Program (SMP) announced on November 11, 2008 and initiated on December 15, 2008. The extension will also provide additional time for the company to operationalize its new National REO Rental Policy, which will allow renters in company-owned foreclosed properties to stay in their homes. Details of the new policy are expected to be announced shortly.

The temporary suspension of foreclosures will allow affected borrowers facing foreclosure to retain their homes while Fannie Mae works with mortgage servicers to implement the SMP. Foreclosure attorneys and loan servicers have been instructed to use the additional time to reach out to borrowers and continue to pursue workout options. The initiative applies to loans owned or securitized by Fannie Mae.

The SMP is aimed at the borrower who has missed three payments or more, owns and occupies the primary residence, and has not filed for bankruptcy. The program creates a fast-track method for getting troubled borrowers into an affordable monthly payment through a mix of reducing the mortgage interest rate, extending the life of the loan or even deferring payments on part of the principal. Servicers have flexibility in the approach, but the objective is to create a more affordable payment for borrowers at risk of foreclosure.

Fannie Mae's loan servicers are prepared to work with borrowers during this suspension period, even if previous workout efforts have been unsuccessful. As part of the company's "Second Look" initiative, Fannie Mae personnel have been reviewing seriously delinquent loans to determine if the borrower has been contacted and all workout options have been exhausted.

The streamlined modification program and temporary suspension of foreclosures are two of a series of steps Fannie Mae has taken to expand its foreclosure prevention efforts, which are designed to give loan servicers and foreclosure attorneys tools to find the best solution for a borrower in financial trouble. Fannie Mae and its many partners in the housing industry urge borrowers in financial difficulty to reach out to their loan servicers, regardless of whether they are facing imminent foreclosure. Solutions may be available that could make an existing mortgage more affordable.


For Buyers: So the home that you want to buy is bank owned....

All buyers looking for homes in today market are going to run into this same scenario: the bank owned property that you want has a requirement that you get a specific lenders blessing before your offer can be submitted. This "specific lender" is 99% of the time a loan officer working at the bank that the home is owned by.

Since the probability of you running into this is HIGH then you should have scanned and ready to email to this lender: 2006-07 tax returns, one month’s statement of all assets (checking, savings and investments), last two paystubs and a full credit report (if you have already been preapproved then the lender that you are preapproved with should have this report). Scrambling at the last moment to get this stuff together could cost you the house while they accept someone else's offer.

No, your agent cannot speak with the loan officer for you. The reason that they request that they talk to YOU is to 1) take the loan application 2) to have the opportunity to offer you typically pretty good deals on financing through them.

Do you have to use the bank who owns the property for your financing?? NO! It's not legal if they tell you that you do have to use them.

 

 


C.A.R. reports entry-level housing affordability at 33 percent in California

LOS ANGELES (Feb. 19)—The percentage of households that could afford to buy an entry-level home in California stood at 33 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, compared with 25 percent for the same period a year ago, according to a report released today by the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.).

C.A.R.’s First-time Buyer Housing Affordability Index (FTB-HAI) measures the percentage of households that can afford to purchase an entry-level home in California. C.A.R. also reports first-time buyer indexes for regions and select counties within the state. The Index is the most fundamental measure of housing well-being for first-time buyers in the state.

The minimum household income needed to purchase an entry-level home at $411,170 in California in the fourth quarter of 2007 was $82,200, based on an adjustable interest rate of 6.21 percent and assuming a 10 percent down payment. First-time buyers typically purchase a home equal to 85 percent of the prevailing median price. The monthly payment including taxes and insurance was $2,740 for the fourth quarter of 2007.

At 54 percent, the High Desert region was the most affordable in the state, followed by the Sacramento region at 53 percent. Monterey was the least affordable region in the state at 20 percent, followed by the Santa Barbara region at 21 percent.

Leading the way...® in real estate news and information for more than 100 years, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (www.car.org) is one of the largest state trade organizations in the United States, with nearly 200,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. C.A.R. is headquartered in Los Angeles.

C.A.R. FIRST-TIME BUYER HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEX *

 

 

Q4 2007

Q3 2007

 

Q4 2006

 

California

33

24

 

25

 

California - Condos

42

38

 

37

 

United States

65

62

r

62

 

C.A.R. Region

 

 

 

 

 

Central Valley

NA

NA

 

39

 

High Desert

54

48

 

41

 

Los Angeles County

27

20

 

19

 

Monterey Region

20

16

 

19

 

Northern California

42

38

 

37

 

Northern Wine Country

33

24

 

24

 

Orange County

28

24

 

24

 

Palm Sprgs/Lwr Desert

38

33

 

33

 

Riverside/SBernardino

46

39

 

34

 

Sacramento County

53

46

 

41

 

San Diego County

31

24

 

23

 

San Francisco Bay

23

18

 

25

 

San Luis Obispo County

28

20

 

22

 

Santa Barbara Area

21

11

 

18

r

Santa Clara County

24

21

 

29

 

Southern California

33

24

 

25

 

Ventura County

30

25

 

26

 

COUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

Alameda

27

23

 

25

 

Contra Costa

22

16

 

23

r

Fresno

47

44

 

42

 

Marin

22

20

 

22

 

Merced

51

48

 

41

 

Riverside

42

36

 

34

 

San Bernardino

46

44

 

37

r

San Francisco

20

15

 

19

 

San Joaquin

NA

NA

 

34

 

San Mateo

19

17

 

20

 

Santa Cruz

22

17

 

21

 

Sonoma

36

25

 

25

 

Stanislaus

NA

NA

 

37

 

* -- percentage of California households that can afford to purchase a median-priced home

r – revised

Source:  CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

 


Tax Break for Mortgage Debt Forgiveness

Pursuant to the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, signed by the President in December, taxpayers temporarily do not have to pay federal income tax on debt forgiven for a loan secured by a qualified principal residence.  Thus, for all debts discharged from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009, such as in short sales, as long as the debt in question is secured by a taxpayer’s principal residence and the debt was incurred in acquiring, constructing or substantially improving the residence the fact that the debt was forgiven will not result in any income tax liability to the taxpayer.  This tax break also applies to a discharge of an obligation of a qualified principal residence indebtedness as long as the debt does not exceed $2,000,000 (or $1,000,000 for married individuals filing a separate tax return).  In addition, for purposes of calculating capital gains, any debts discharged but excluded from income under this new law must be subtracted from the basis of the taxpayer’s principal residence (but not below zero) for purposes of calculating any capital gains tax. 
Subscribe to this feed