Mortgage PressureAn unintended consequence of the federal government’s effort to control every aspect of finance following Wall Street’s excesses, circa 2005 – 2007, has been that the occasional note and trust deed (or mortgage) that folks took back when selling their own residential property, has fallen victim to regulatory oversight. Continue reading “Seller-Carried Financing – What Realtors® And Their Clients Need To Know (Part One)”

HouseThe Regional Multiple Listing Service (“RMLS™”) has today, September 13, 2013, published the statistics for August, 2013 in its monthly Market Action Letter.  Although some of the numbers are a bit off from last month’s feeding frenzy, they are still quite good. Herewith, excerpts from the report:

Closed sales (2,623) decreased by 5.2% compared to July (2,766), but represent the best August for closed sales in Portland since 2006 when there were 2,939! Continue reading “RMLS™ Portland-Metro Stats for August 2013 – Continuing Good News!”

DecisionEver changed your mind?  Gotten buyer’s remorse? Seller’s remorse?  Well, join the club! It’s human nature to second-guess ourselves.  Knowing that, perhaps you will want to read some do’s and don’ts in the process of negotiating a real estate transaction – especially when it comes to revoking an offer or counteroffer.

[To continue, go to link here.]

 

SigningPapersMost everyone who has purchased a home in Oregon has obtained a title insurance policy. However, few have read them.  And those that have, likely don’t understand what is and is not covered. Here is Part One of a primer on title insurance to help folks understand what it is and what it does.

[To continue, go to link here.]

Crystal BallOK, we’ve made it through the first half of 2013. We now have six months’ of foreclosure statistics. I posted the first quarter stats for the year here.  Now, armed with the second quarter, I’m prepared to prognosticate – for what it’s worth.  [Actually, Q3 and Q4 will be the most interesting, as we move forward into a post-Niday foreclosure world, and SB 558, the mandatory resolution law, goes into effect.  I predicted here, that the Niday and Brandrup decisions would have little impact on the Big Bank judicial foreclosures; the stats going into the end of 2013 will give us a peek of things to come.] Here is the link to the 2Q stats.  What follows is a “back of the napkin” analysis – i.e. scribbled notes and scrambled thoughts.  I could be all wrong. Time will tell. Continue reading “Q2 Portland-Metro Foreclosure Stats – What Are They Telling Us?”

feeding frenzyHow low can housing inventory go?  According to Oregon’s Regional Multiple Listing Service (“RMLS®”), May’s inventory dropped to 2.5 months.  To clarify, according to RMLS®, “inventory in months”:

“…is calculated by dividing the Active Listings at the end of the month in question by the number of closed sales for that month. This includes proposed and under construction homes.”

Here are the numbers from 2011 to date:

Continue reading “2013 Portland Metro Housing Inventory = Feeding Frenzy”

GavelIn a important decision on the future role of MERS in Oregon’s non-judicial foreclosure process, the Oregon Supreme Court answered four certified questions that had been submitted to it.  Herewith, verbatim, is a copy of the media release.  This is not the court’s written opinion.  The release contains a link to the official opinion. [Note: I changed the formatting slightly for readability. PCQ]

SUPREME COURT Media Release Contact: The full text of these opinions can be found at  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/ Stephen P. Armitage Staff Attorney (503) 986-7023

Cases decided June 6, 2013

Bart G. Brandrup, et al., v. Recontrust Company, N.A., et al., (USDC Case No. 311CV1390HZ, 311CV1399HZ, 311CV1533SI, 312CV0010HA) (SC S060281)

On certified questions from the United States District Court. The certified questions are answered. Opinion of the Court by Justice David V. Brewer. Justice Rives Kistler concurred in part and dissented in part, and filed an opinion in which Chief Justice Thomas A. Balmer joined.

Today, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion answering four questions that had been certified to it by the United States District Court. The questions all pertain to the Oregon Trust Deed Act (OTDA) and how it is affected by the practice in the home mortgage industry of drafting mortgages and trust deeds so that a certain Delaware corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), rather than the lender, is identified as the security instrument’s “beneficiary.” The questions arose when home loan borrowers in four separate cases brought actions in state court against MERS and other entitles that were attempting to use the nonjudicial foreclosure procedures of the OTDA to foreclose the trust deeds securing plaintiffs’ home loans. In each case, plaintiffs sought to enjoin the foreclosure on the ground that a condition for nonjudicial foreclosure set out in ORS 86.735(1) — that any assignments of the trust deed by the “beneficiary” be recorded in the relevant county real property records — had not been satisfied. In each case, defendants removed the case to federal court and then filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), arguing that MERS was the lawful beneficiary under the trust deeds and that all assignments of the trust deeds by MERS had been recorded. Uncertain as whether MERS could be deemed the “beneficiary” of the trust deeds in question under the OTDA, and, if not, what role MERS could play under the statute, the United States District Court certified the following (reframed) questions to the Oregon Supreme Court: Continue reading “QUERIN LAW: Oregon Supreme Court Decides Niday and Brandrup”

iStock_000010654155SmallEver been curious which areas are hardest hit by foreclosures in the Portland-Metro counties?  Wondering how many judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosures are filed? Are the foreclosure mills going to be hiring or firing personnel over the coming months?

Well, thanks to the raw data ably compiled in First American Title Company of Oregon’s Foreclosure Report, and a skilled Notre Dame law grad, Danica Skeoch, who did the wonderful graphics, the information for the first quarter of 2013 is depicted on the following ten pages here.  I have some thoughts on what they mean, and hope to post them soon. Enjoy!  ~PCQ

teacherIntroduction. The term “multiple offers” refers to situations in which sellers receive two or more offers to purchase their property.  The reason for multiple offers during the boom years of 2005 – 2007 was because prices were rising rapidly, and buyers wanted their offers accepted quickly in order to lock in the price.  Consider this:  With average prices appreciating, say 18% per year [which was not unheard of], this meant that at 1.5% a month, by the time a buyer closed in 45-60 days, he or she had already realized a sizeable amount of paper equity.  On the other side of the coin, sellers who had already committed to sell were often lured by higher offers that came in while their sale was pending with another buyer.  It is for this reason that there were so many specific performance suits and/or arbitrations filed during this time; sellers didn’t want to close with their buyer, because after they went under contract they found they could get a better price, and looked for reasons to terminate the first transaction. Continue reading “QUERIN LAW: Dealing with Multiple Offers in 2013”

Breaking NewsIntroduction.  After a false start in 2012, the 2013 Oregon Legislature has just passed its “new, improved” version of what was generally known as the Mandatory Mediation Law. Besides tweaking various provisions in the prior law, SB 558 closed a loophole big enough that the Big Banks were able to drive their Foreclosure Bus through it.  Until July, 2012, virtually all lenders, except Wells Fargo, were conducting their foreclosures non-judicially, i.e. outside the court room.  With limited exceptions, the process, which is found in ORS 86.705 – 86.795, had been the sole method used for residential foreclosures in Oregon for the past fifty years. While lenders have always had the option to judicially foreclose Oregon homeowners who defaulted on their loans, it was rarely used.  In fact, in 1959, when the trust deed law was enacted, it was the lenders that lobbied long and hard for it; they knew it was far faster and cheaper than going to court to foreclose.      Continue reading “QUERIN LAW: SB 558 – Oregon’s New Mandatory Resolution Conference Law for Borrowers Facing Foreclosure (2013)”