California Investment Firm and City Team Up to Erase Mortgages Through Eminent Domain

by Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC
Contact


If a California investment firm and the City of Richmond, California have their way, the mortgage industry may face a new threat: a plan to use government’s eminent domain power to seize homes where homeowners owe more than their homes are worth. San Francisco-based investment firm Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC (“MRP”) created its Homeownership Protection Program to do just that. Under the program, homeowners get immediate equity where they had none before, and MRP and the seizing city end up with a profit. The lender and anyone else with an interest in the mortgage loan lose.
 
The Expansion of Eminent Domain
States and national governments traditionally have the power to exercise eminent domain to seize private property and use that property for a public purpose. This is how a row of abandoned houses becomes a new highway on-ramp or an old parking lot becomes a city park. Before taking the property, governments must pay the owner a percentage of the “fair market value.” The percentage varies by state, but many states require 75 to 80 percent of the fair market value to be paid. Although there may be a debate over the fair market value of a piece of private property, the significant point is that for so-called “underwater homeowners,” the fair market value of their homes is less than the mortgage they owe.
 
In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States took eminent domain a step further with its decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court’s decision in this case made it clear that a city could use eminent domain to seize private property that was not in a blighted area and transfer that property to a private developer. This was not to make a highway or a park, but to develop it in order to increase the city’s revenues.
 
Eminent Domain for Profit
After the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, it was only a matter of time until someone applied that rationale to home mortgages. Under the MRP’s Homeownership Protection Program, a city identifies homes worth less than the current balance of their mortgages. The city seizes those homes (with the consent of the homeowners), paying a percentage of the fair market value of the home. When the city pays for the property based on its fair market value (and not on the balance of the mortgage), the lender is receiving less than it contracted with the borrower to receive. Add to that the privilege the government has of only paying a percentage of the fair market value to get the property. That further decreases the amount the lender receives.
 
Once the city owns the home, and the mortgage is gone, it can then sell the home back to the original homeowner for an amount more than the government paid for the home, but less than the fair market value of the home. The city makes a profit instantly. The homeowner goes from being underwater to having equity instantly. The lender loses.
 
An example helps explain how MRP’s program works. Suppose a homeowner owes $250,000 on her mortgage, but her home is only worth $200,000. She is underwater. The borrower obtained her mortgage loan many years ago because a lender was willing to take a chance on her. That loan made it possible for her to buy a home because, practically speaking, few Americans have enough savings to pay cash for a home. Now, many years later, the city can seize her home through eminent domain. If it does so, it pays a percentage of the home’s fair market value of $200,000. Presuming the city pays 80 percent of the fair market value, the city gets to seize the home and extinguish the $250,000 mortgage for $160,000. The lender loses $90,000. Under the program, MRP provides the financing for the city. The city sells the home back to the homeowner for $180,000. The homeowner instantly has $20,000 in equity where she had none before (the difference between the fair market value of $200,000 and the $180,000 new loan). The city instantly makes $20,000 (the difference between the $180,000 it sold the home for and the $160,000 it paid for the home). MRP gets a cut of the government’s profit.
 
MRP claims its program helps cities deal with the deepening crisis of underwater homeowners and provides an alternative to those homeowners throwing up their hands and abandoning their homes. Critics charge that the program will lead to increased interest rates and costs for borrowers to get mortgages.
 
Richmond, California
MRP’s program is not just theory. For months, it shopped its program around the country, from Irvington, New Jersey to Oakland, California. Several cities and counties expressed interest, but none went as far as trying to implement the program. That was until MRP teamed up with Richmond, California. Its mayor decided the program made sense. The mayor and MRP identified more than 400 homes as candidates for the program, and the mayor contacted the lenders of the mortgage loans on those homes. She suggested the lenders refinance each of the mortgages. If they would not, she told them the city was prepared to use eminent domain to seize the homes and pay the lenders only a portion of the fair market values.

In response, the trustees of hundreds of trusts that hold mortgage loans on homes in Richmond filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to stop the city before the plan went into motion. They claimed, among other things, the program was an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation. Richmond and MRP fought back, asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. They claimed it was premature since no action yet had been taken to seize a home. In the end, the judge agreed the lawsuit was premature and dismissed it, leaving Richmond and MRP free to proceed. The trustees appealed the decision, but a few weeks ago they dropped the appeal.
 
The dropping of the appeal means the case is over. It leaves open the door for Richmond and MRP to start seizing homes. If they do, the trustees have vowed to immediately refile the lawsuit. We should see in the coming months whether the program ends up being an idea that never picks up steam or whether it represents a new challenge for an already beleaguered mortgage industry. Spilman attorneys will be monitoring the situation, so be sure to check back regularly for updates.
- See more at: http://www.spilmanlaw.com/Resources/Attorney-Authored-Articles/Banking-Finance/California-Investment-Firm-and-City-Team-Up-to-Era#sthash.fTev9kqa.dpuf

If a California investment firm and the City of Richmond, California have their way, the mortgage industry may face a new threat: a plan to use government’s eminent domain power to seize homes where homeowners owe more than their homes are worth. San Francisco-based investment firm Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC (“MRP”) created its Homeownership Protection Program to do just that. Under the program, homeowners get immediate equity where they had none before, and MRP and the seizing city end up with a profit. The lender and anyone else with an interest in the mortgage loan lose.
 
The Expansion of Eminent Domain
States and national governments traditionally have the power to exercise eminent domain to seize private property and use that property for a public purpose. This is how a row of abandoned houses becomes a new highway on-ramp or an old parking lot becomes a city park. Before taking the property, governments must pay the owner a percentage of the “fair market value.” The percentage varies by state, but many states require 75 to 80 percent of the fair market value to be paid. Although there may be a debate over the fair market value of a piece of private property, the significant point is that for so-called “underwater homeowners,” the fair market value of their homes is less than the mortgage they owe.
 
In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States took eminent domain a step further with its decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court’s decision in this case made it clear that a city could use eminent domain to seize private property that was not in a blighted area and transfer that property to a private developer. This was not to make a highway or a park, but to develop it in order to increase the city’s revenues.
 
Eminent Domain for Profit
After the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, it was only a matter of time until someone applied that rationale to home mortgages. Under the MRP’s Homeownership Protection Program, a city identifies homes worth less than the current balance of their mortgages. The city seizes those homes (with the consent of the homeowners), paying a percentage of the fair market value of the home. When the city pays for the property based on its fair market value (and not on the balance of the mortgage), the lender is receiving less than it contracted with the borrower to receive. Add to that the privilege the government has of only paying a percentage of the fair market value to get the property. That further decreases the amount the lender receives.
 
Once the city owns the home, and the mortgage is gone, it can then sell the home back to the original homeowner for an amount more than the government paid for the home, but less than the fair market value of the home. The city makes a profit instantly. The homeowner goes from being underwater to having equity instantly. The lender loses.
 
An example helps explain how MRP’s program works. Suppose a homeowner owes $250,000 on her mortgage, but her home is only worth $200,000. She is underwater. The borrower obtained her mortgage loan many years ago because a lender was willing to take a chance on her. That loan made it possible for her to buy a home because, practically speaking, few Americans have enough savings to pay cash for a home. Now, many years later, the city can seize her home through eminent domain. If it does so, it pays a percentage of the home’s fair market value of $200,000. Presuming the city pays 80 percent of the fair market value, the city gets to seize the home and extinguish the $250,000 mortgage for $160,000. The lender loses $90,000. Under the program, MRP provides the financing for the city. The city sells the home back to the homeowner for $180,000. The homeowner instantly has $20,000 in equity where she had none before (the difference between the fair market value of $200,000 and the $180,000 new loan). The city instantly makes $20,000 (the difference between the $180,000 it sold the home for and the $160,000 it paid for the home). MRP gets a cut of the government’s profit.
 
MRP claims its program helps cities deal with the deepening crisis of underwater homeowners and provides an alternative to those homeowners throwing up their hands and abandoning their homes. Critics charge that the program will lead to increased interest rates and costs for borrowers to get mortgages.
 
Richmond, California
MRP’s program is not just theory. For months, it shopped its program around the country, from Irvington, New Jersey to Oakland, California. Several cities and counties expressed interest, but none went as far as trying to implement the program. That was until MRP teamed up with Richmond, California. Its mayor decided the program made sense. The mayor and MRP identified more than 400 homes as candidates for the program, and the mayor contacted the lenders of the mortgage loans on those homes. She suggested the lenders refinance each of the mortgages. If they would not, she told them the city was prepared to use eminent domain to seize the homes and pay the lenders only a portion of the fair market values.

In response, the trustees of hundreds of trusts that hold mortgage loans on homes in Richmond filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to stop the city before the plan went into motion. They claimed, among other things, the program was an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation. Richmond and MRP fought back, asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. They claimed it was premature since no action yet had been taken to seize a home. In the end, the judge agreed the lawsuit was premature and dismissed it, leaving Richmond and MRP free to proceed. The trustees appealed the decision, but a few weeks ago they dropped the appeal.
 
The dropping of the appeal means the case is over. It leaves open the door for Richmond and MRP to start seizing homes. If they do, the trustees have vowed to immediately refile the lawsuit. We should see in the coming months whether the program ends up being an idea that never picks up steam or whether it represents a new challenge for an already beleaguered mortgage industry.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC
Contact
more
less

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!