Sunday March 21, 2010 3:30 PM ET
SmartMoney
Published January 9, 2009  |  A A A
Consumer Action by Aleksandra Todorova (Author Archive)

Help for Homeowners May Be on the Way

Two years into the housing crisis and several widely-criticized bailout plans later, struggling homeowners may finally be getting some real help.

The good news came from an unexpected source Thursday, when one of the nation's largest lenders, Citigroup (C), announced its support for legislation that would allow consumers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy repayment plans to get their mortgages modified. These modifications, also known as "cram downs," would involve both a reduction of the interest rate and, if the homeowner is underwater on their mortgage, an adjustment of the loan principal down to the home's current market value.

"This is the only program that gives homeowners actual rights, and therefore leverage, negotiating with their lenders," says Henry Sommer, a bankruptcy attorney in Philadelphia and director with the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

Although the plan directly affects only homeowners filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, consumer advocates and bankruptcy attorneys hope that the legislation -- if it becomes law -- would prod lenders to offer the same type of cram downs to all troubled homeowners.

"The hope is that when the mortgage companies understand that if they don't do anything, the person will file bankruptcy and get this relief, they'll offer them something reasonable," Sommer says.

Previous bailout plans encouraged the mortgage industry to modify troubled loans, but they often had questionable results. While loan modifications increased last year, 55% of these loans were 30 or more days delinquent just six months later, according to an Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) report. The problem? Many of the modifications rarely resulted in an affordable mortgage payment, explains John Rao, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group.

In fact, an alarming 45% of modifications actually increased the homeowner's monthly payment, while 20% left the payment the same, according to a report published in November 2008 by Alan White, assistant professor of law at Valparaiso University.

So what are the chances of this legislation becoming law? There were several unsuccessful attempts to pass this bill last year, most recently as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, more well known as the $700 billion bailout. But now that that a major lender is behind it -- and others may soon follow, Rao says the chances it will be signed into law are pretty good. He thinks it could happen as soon as President-elect Obama takes office.

There is one possible blockade, however. The Mortgage Bankers Association continues to oppose the bill. “We remain opposed to bankruptcy cram down legislation because of the destabilizing effect it will have on an already turbulent mortgage market," said John A. Courson, president and CEO, and David G. Kittle, CMB chairman in a statement.

How the "cram down" legislation will help homeowners:

1. Encourage lenders to do more loan modifications in order to keep homeowners out of the bankruptcy courts. Effectively, give borrowers leverage in negotiating with their mortgage servicer or lender.

2. Improve the quality of loan modifications, including a reduction in mortgage principal to reflect the current market value of the home. This may result in fewer homeowners walking away from their homes.

3. Improve the likelihood that Chapter 13 bankruptcy filers get to keep their homes. Currently, as judges do not have the right to modify mortgage loans on primary residences, many homeowners who file for bankruptcy protection in order to avoid foreclosure fall behind on their payments. Then, the mortgage company gets permission from the courts to foreclose anyway.


Follow SmartMoney on Facebook, Twitter & More: Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share RSS
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
User Comments
Posted by: Jax08

While it may seem ridiculous and unfair to help distressed homeowners (which is not entirely the homeowners fault), until we Start helping distressed homeowners, we will be flooded with foreclosures. We can't sell off the foreclosures that are currently on the market now and we are soon to be flooded with many, many more by the thousands, not to mention the unemployment rate currently 7.6% (598,000 jobs lost in January 2009). You say it is unfair and ridiculous to all the responsible people - but do you realize by Not helping the Distressed Homeowners (try to stay in their homes to prevent foreclosures) you are going to bring down the value of your Own Property by another 20 to 30% by the time we are flooded with thousands more foreclosures. You can stick to your opinion and call it unfair and ridiculous and watch your Own Property Value keep going down or We can help them and hopefully you can hang on to the equity you have in your property. Appraisers are now being Told they...(Read more of this comment)
Posted by: greengoo
I'm in agreement with Jewelie. It's ridiculous to reduce people's mortgage amounts! It's unfair to those who pay their mortgages as well as for those who still cannot afford house payments (prices are still overinflated in many areas)!
Posted by: jc-vista
Commenting about the loss of 20% of the initial investment in your now secondary residence. It would not be losing as much if it was not competing against foreclosures. I read that 45% of home sales currently are for those type of fire sale purchases.
Regarding the forgiving of losses due to lost appraised values for others getting loan modifications, it is due mainly because the one who will buy the loan would not approve a loan with lost equity just as a potential home buyer would not pay the price of your initial investment and with the improvements even. Someone needs to take the loss so it would be either the lender who made a loan which is not affordable under the conditions marketed or the investor when the property goes out on a fire sale.
In either situation the Mortgage industry will use it to justify ripping off future home buyers because of losses which their previous practices caused yo a large degree.
Anyway, the point is lenders will not make loans for homes ...(Read more of this comment)
Posted by: JediJoe7
Boomer414, I feel for you. Your's is not a situation I'd wish on anybody. I agree that a desparate need exists for a rewrite of the rules to assist folks in your position. I also, understand that you had no real choice in the matter. Back in the '70's I worked for a large multi-national that basically said relocate to Sydney, Australia. I choose not to and it cost me a very good paying job. You had no way of foreseeing the current circumstances. Wheather or not you read every detail of your contract is irrelavant at this juncture. That just proves that you were prudent and made the best decision for yourself at that time. I've seen a number of people who didn't pay attention to the details or didn't ask questions and were later surprised. I'm not sure what changes would be made to help you guys out. Obviously nobody considered that when they wrote the rules, but now something needs to be done. I hate to say this but as long you can keep your head above water I don't see any...(Read more of this comment)
Posted by: boomer414
We took an unpaid transfer a year ago and have been paying 2 mortgages for months now while our previous home sits empty and For Sale at 20% less than what we put into it over 4 1/2 years living in it(improvements, not just upkeep). Our agent says it is at a fair market value for these times. Although very tight, we have maintained both mortgages and utilities and insurances. This legislation gives homeowners that are underwater on their mortgage, an adjustment of the loan principal down to the home's current market value. What about homeowners like ourselves that were caught in the middle of this but have still managed to stay above water, barely? We are not even allowed to take the eventual loss of selling our previous home as a tax deduction. (Because a primary residence is a personal asset, homeowners can't claim a deductible on their tax return if they sold their home at a loss, says Saks) You may say we should not have taken the transfer, but then we would have stood the good cha...(Read more of this comment)
Advertisements
 
Retrieving data...

Related Quotes

C 3.90 Down -0.12 -2.99%