FTC Press Release
Eight marketers are banned from selling mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC alleged that the marketers charged homeowners up-front fees and falsely claimed they could get their mortgage loans modified or prevent foreclosure on their homes. The settlements in three separate actions are part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts against scams that target financially distressed consumers.
The FTC settled with the following defendants:
Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Steven Oscherowitz settled FTC charges that he and others advertised and sold a so-called “Federal Loan Modification program.” They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm). The settlement order against Oscherowitz permanently bans him from selling mortgage relief services and from telemarketing any good or service. Under the order, Oscherowitz also is prohibited from misrepresenting any good or service, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly. The order imposes an $11.5 million judgment against Oscherowitz, which represents the amount consumers paid to the defendants while he was involved in the alleged scheme. Any money collected to satisfy the judgment will be paid to injured consumers if practicable, or to the U.S. Treasury as disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Two individual and three corporate defendants already have settled charges against them in this case, and the FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants.
Loss Mitigation Services. Dean Shafer, Marion Anthony “Tony” Perry, and Bernadette Perry, also known as Bernadette Carr and Bernadette Carr-Perry, settled allegations that they falsely promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers paid an advance fee of up to $5,500. Shafer and the Perrys, who were principals of Loss Mitigation Services, Inc. (LMS) and Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender or DirectLender.com (Direct Lender), also allegedly misrepresented that the companies were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In addition, Shafer and the Perrys falsely claimed that consumers would receive refunds if LMS or Direct Lender failed to secure a loan modification. In many cases, the defendants failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, and some consumers lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm.) Under the settlement orders, Shafer and the Perrys are banned from selling mortgage relief services. The orders also impose a $6.2 million judgment that is suspended due to their inability to pay. In addition to the orders against Shafer and the Perrys, the FTC obtained a default order against LMS and Direct Lender, banning them from selling mortgage relief services and ordering them to pay $6.2 million.
Hope Now Modifications. Brothers Salvatore and Nicholas Puglia, Hope Now Modifications LLC, and Hope Now Financial Services Corporation settled FTC charges that they falsely claimed that they could obtain mortgage loan modifications in all or virtually all cases and would refund consumers’ money if they failed, and that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a free federal homeowner assistance program. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm). In addition to banning the defendants from selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against them permanently bars them from misrepresenting any good or service, violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, selling or otherwise benefitting from their customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of their customer information properly. The order also imposes a judgment of almost $5.3 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender all of the funds in their bank accounts, which were frozen by the court.
The Commission votes to authorize staff to file the stipulated final orders in Federal Loan Modification Law Center and Loss Mitigation Services were 5-0. The orders were entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 12, 2010, and July 14, 2010, respectively. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order in Hope Now Modifications was 5-0. The order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 12, 2010.
NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
FTC Says Free Credit Reports Must Really Be FREE!
FTC Warns Websites That Offer 'Free' Credit Reports: Disclose Federally Mandated Free Reports or Face Prosecution
The Federal Trade Commission is warning 18 Internet websites offering free credit reports that they must clearly disclose that a free report is available under federal law. The FTC’s recently amended Free Credit Reports Rule, which took effect April 2, 2010, requires certain disclosures to help consumers distinguish between ads for free credit reports that often require them to buy credit monitoring or other services, and the federally mandated no-strings-attached credit reports available at AnnualCreditReport.com or 877-322-8228. For example, websites offering free credit reports must have a disclosure, with links to AnnualCreditReport.com and FTC.gov, that appears across the top of each page that mentions free credit reports. Violators are subject to legal action that can result in penalties of up to $3,500 per violation. The Commission vote to publicly disclose the warning letters was 5-0.
Warning letters are being sent to the following:
Company Name: Website
National Credit Report.Com LLC: NationalCreditReport.com
Quinstreet, Inc.: FreeCreditReport4U.com
MyCreditCenter.Com, Inc.: My CreditCenter.com, 3CreditReport.com,Online, FreeCreditReports.com
Vertrue, Inc.: My3BureauCreditReport.com, FreeScore.com, FreeTripleCreditScore.com, Free3BureauCreditReport.com, FreeOnlineReportNow.com
ConsumerTrack, Inc.: GoFreeCredit.com, FreeCredit-Reports.net,Free-Credit-Reports-Repair.com
ConsumerDirect, Inc.: FreeCredit-Report.net, SmartCredit.com
Mighty Net, Inc.: 3FreeCreditReportsUSA.com
Amie Nguyen: AllFreeCreditReports.com
Amanda Raab: FreeCreditReportsUSA.com
Information in credit reports may affect whether consumers can get a loan or a job, so it is important for consumers to check their reports and correct any inaccurate information. Consumers can learn more about their right to a free credit report under federal law at http://www.ftc.gov/freereports.
The Federal Trade Commission is warning 18 Internet websites offering free credit reports that they must clearly disclose that a free report is available under federal law. The FTC’s recently amended Free Credit Reports Rule, which took effect April 2, 2010, requires certain disclosures to help consumers distinguish between ads for free credit reports that often require them to buy credit monitoring or other services, and the federally mandated no-strings-attached credit reports available at AnnualCreditReport.com or 877-322-8228. For example, websites offering free credit reports must have a disclosure, with links to AnnualCreditReport.com and FTC.gov, that appears across the top of each page that mentions free credit reports. Violators are subject to legal action that can result in penalties of up to $3,500 per violation. The Commission vote to publicly disclose the warning letters was 5-0.
Warning letters are being sent to the following:
Company Name: Website
National Credit Report.Com LLC: NationalCreditReport.com
Quinstreet, Inc.: FreeCreditReport4U.com
MyCreditCenter.Com, Inc.: My CreditCenter.com, 3CreditReport.com,Online, FreeCreditReports.com
Vertrue, Inc.: My3BureauCreditReport.com, FreeScore.com, FreeTripleCreditScore.com, Free3BureauCreditReport.com, FreeOnlineReportNow.com
ConsumerTrack, Inc.: GoFreeCredit.com, FreeCredit-Reports.net,Free-Credit-Reports-Repair.com
ConsumerDirect, Inc.: FreeCredit-Report.net, SmartCredit.com
Mighty Net, Inc.: 3FreeCreditReportsUSA.com
Amie Nguyen: AllFreeCreditReports.com
Amanda Raab: FreeCreditReportsUSA.com
Information in credit reports may affect whether consumers can get a loan or a job, so it is important for consumers to check their reports and correct any inaccurate information. Consumers can learn more about their right to a free credit report under federal law at http://www.ftc.gov/freereports.
Monday, July 26, 2010
HUD To Investigate Mortgage Lenders Who Discriminate Against Expectant Mothers And New Parents
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced today that it will launch multiple investigations into the lending practices of certain mortgage lenders to determine if they illegally denied families mortgages because the mother is pregnant or a family member is experiencing a short-term disability. The action follows a report published this week in the New York Times outlining the lending practices of some lenders which might possibly violate the Fair Housing Act.
"Denying a mortgage to people just because they're having a baby is flat wrong," said Vice President Biden, Chair of the White House Task Force on Middle Class Families. "Mothers on maternity leave have jobs, they have income, and they shouldn't have to lose their deal to close on a house because they had a baby. I applaud HUD for taking action on this practice that could potentially affect untold numbers of families."
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said, "Lenders have every right to ascertain the incomes of families to determine whether they are eligible for a mortgage loan but they have no right to use a pregnancy or a short-term disability as a cause to deny that family a mortgage they would otherwise qualify for. Having a child should be a time for a family to celebrate and must not be a cause for unfair lending practices."
HUD enforces the Fair Housing Act which prohibits discrimination in lending based on sex, familial status (pregnancy or children in the family), or disability. The Act protects consumers from being discriminated against based on a borrower's maternity leave if the borrower can demonstrate that she intends to return to work and can otherwise continue to meet the income requirements to qualify for the loan.
A published report in the New York Times indicated that some mortgage lenders may be denying credit to borrowers because of a pregnancy or maternity leave. As a result, HUD's Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity is opening multiple investigations into the practices of lending institutions to determine if they are violating the Fair Housing Act.
"This report is profoundly disturbing and requires immediate action," said John Trasviña, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the office that will be directing these investigations. "Lenders must not carry out due diligence responsibilities in ways that have the practical effect of discriminating against recent or expectant mothers."
HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) requires its approved lenders to review a borrower's income to determine whether they can reasonably be expected to continue paying their mortgage for the first three years of the loan. FHA-insured lenders cannot, however, inquire about future maternity leave. If a borrower is on maternity or short-term disability leave at the time of closing, lenders must document the borrower's intent to return to work, that the borrower has the right to return to work, and that the borrower qualifies for the loan taking into account any reduction of income due to their leave. Meanwhile, HUD is currently reviewing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's underwriting guidelines to determine if they satisfy the Fair Housing Act, including income verification of persons taking parental or disability leave.
"Denying a mortgage to people just because they're having a baby is flat wrong," said Vice President Biden, Chair of the White House Task Force on Middle Class Families. "Mothers on maternity leave have jobs, they have income, and they shouldn't have to lose their deal to close on a house because they had a baby. I applaud HUD for taking action on this practice that could potentially affect untold numbers of families."
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said, "Lenders have every right to ascertain the incomes of families to determine whether they are eligible for a mortgage loan but they have no right to use a pregnancy or a short-term disability as a cause to deny that family a mortgage they would otherwise qualify for. Having a child should be a time for a family to celebrate and must not be a cause for unfair lending practices."
HUD enforces the Fair Housing Act which prohibits discrimination in lending based on sex, familial status (pregnancy or children in the family), or disability. The Act protects consumers from being discriminated against based on a borrower's maternity leave if the borrower can demonstrate that she intends to return to work and can otherwise continue to meet the income requirements to qualify for the loan.
A published report in the New York Times indicated that some mortgage lenders may be denying credit to borrowers because of a pregnancy or maternity leave. As a result, HUD's Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity is opening multiple investigations into the practices of lending institutions to determine if they are violating the Fair Housing Act.
"This report is profoundly disturbing and requires immediate action," said John Trasviña, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the office that will be directing these investigations. "Lenders must not carry out due diligence responsibilities in ways that have the practical effect of discriminating against recent or expectant mothers."
HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) requires its approved lenders to review a borrower's income to determine whether they can reasonably be expected to continue paying their mortgage for the first three years of the loan. FHA-insured lenders cannot, however, inquire about future maternity leave. If a borrower is on maternity or short-term disability leave at the time of closing, lenders must document the borrower's intent to return to work, that the borrower has the right to return to work, and that the borrower qualifies for the loan taking into account any reduction of income due to their leave. Meanwhile, HUD is currently reviewing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's underwriting guidelines to determine if they satisfy the Fair Housing Act, including income verification of persons taking parental or disability leave.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
5 Real Estate Scams You Need to Know About
Don't be duped by mortgage fraud. Here are a few common scams and the red flags you should look for in a transaction.
By Melissa Dittmann Tracey | August 2010
Mortgage fraud is pervasive: An estimated $4 billion to $6 billion in annual losses result from mortgage fraud, according to FBI reports. “An entire community can be damaged by mortgage fraud,” says Rachel Dollar, a lawyer from Santa Rosa, Calif., and editor of the Mortgage Fraud Blog. Mortgage fraud can lead to a spike in foreclosures, home values plummeting, and lenders raising their rates and fees to recover losses.
The crimes are often complex, involving several parties and occurring over multiple transactions. To protect you and your clients, educate yourself about mortgage fraud and be on guard for any warning signs in a transaction. You can start by reviewing these five scams, and then test your knowledge by taking our Mortgage Fraud Quiz.
1. The Foreclosure Rescue Scheme
The Scam: “Rescuers” promise cash-strapped home owners that they can save their home from foreclosure. The rescue, which involves paying upfront fees, can take multiple forms, such as the perpetrator obtaining a new loan on behalf of the owner or by having the owner sign over the home’s deed and then rent the home until they can repurchase it. Eventually, the home owner loses the home, either to foreclosure or the fictitious rescue company.
Red Flags: With foreclosure rescue programs, borrowers are often advised to sign over the title of their house to a third party, become renters of their home, not contact their lender, or send mortgage payments to a third party, according to Fannie Mae, which provides fact sheets on mortgage fraud.
2. Loan Documentation Fraud
The Scam: This fraud involves numerous schemes in which a borrower provides inaccurate financial information — such as about their income, assets, and liabilities — or employment status in order to qualify for a loan with lower rates and more favorable terms. Occupancy fraud is one growing area: Borrowers say they plan to live in the property when they actually intend to rent it.
Red Flags: Documentation may raise suspicion if the employer’s address is shown as a post office box, accumulation of assets compared to the person’s income appears too high or low, the new house is too small to accommodate occupants, the person has no credit history, or the application is unsigned or undated, according to Fannie Mae.
3. Appraisal Fraud
The Scam: A faulty appraisal — saying a property is worth more than what it really is — is connected to many types of mortgage fraud. It entails manipulating or overstating comparables, market values, or property characteristics in order to obtain a higher appraisal. The higher property appraisal, which generates false equity, is done by falsifying an appraisal document or using an appraiser accomplice to obtain the higher value.
Red Flags: Be skeptical of appraisals that are dated prior to the sales contract, list comparable sales that do not contain similarities to the property or are outside the neighborhood, the owner is not the seller listed on the contract or the title, or a third party participating in the transaction orders the appraisal, Freddie Mac warns.
4. Illegal Property Flipping
The Scam: This entails purchasing properties and reselling them at inflated prices. These scams usually involve faulty appraisals and inaccurate loan documents. The property is then refinanced or resold immediately after purchase for an inflated value. The home is purchased at a higher price, often by straw buyers working with the “flipper,” and eventually falls into foreclosure.
Red Flags: Some key things to look for are rapid refinancing of a property; the seller recently having acquired the title or acquiring the title concurrent with the transaction; an appraisal that comes in too high; a property that was recently in foreclosure being purchased at a much lower price than its sales price; or the owner listed on the appraisal and title not matching the seller on the sales contract, according to Fannie Mae.
5. Short Sales Schemes
The Scam: Borrowers owe more than the current value of their home so they fake financial hardship and no longer make their mortgage payments. An accomplice of the borrower then submits a low offer to purchase the property in a short sale agreement. The lender agrees to the short sale, unaware that it was premeditated. The property, after being purchased at the reduced price, is then often resold at the home’s actual value for profit.
Red Flags: The borrower suddenly defaults on the mortgage with no workout discussions with the lender, an immediate offer is made to a lender at a short sale price, the short sale offer is less than current market value, or a cash back is offered at closing to the delinquent borrower (disguised as “repairs” or other payouts, for example) and is not disclosed to the lender, according to Fannie Mae.
You can report instances of suspected mortgage fraud to Stopfraud.gov.
Reprinted from REALTOR® Magazine Online August 2010 with permission of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
By Melissa Dittmann Tracey | August 2010
Mortgage fraud is pervasive: An estimated $4 billion to $6 billion in annual losses result from mortgage fraud, according to FBI reports. “An entire community can be damaged by mortgage fraud,” says Rachel Dollar, a lawyer from Santa Rosa, Calif., and editor of the Mortgage Fraud Blog. Mortgage fraud can lead to a spike in foreclosures, home values plummeting, and lenders raising their rates and fees to recover losses.
The crimes are often complex, involving several parties and occurring over multiple transactions. To protect you and your clients, educate yourself about mortgage fraud and be on guard for any warning signs in a transaction. You can start by reviewing these five scams, and then test your knowledge by taking our Mortgage Fraud Quiz.
1. The Foreclosure Rescue Scheme
The Scam: “Rescuers” promise cash-strapped home owners that they can save their home from foreclosure. The rescue, which involves paying upfront fees, can take multiple forms, such as the perpetrator obtaining a new loan on behalf of the owner or by having the owner sign over the home’s deed and then rent the home until they can repurchase it. Eventually, the home owner loses the home, either to foreclosure or the fictitious rescue company.
Red Flags: With foreclosure rescue programs, borrowers are often advised to sign over the title of their house to a third party, become renters of their home, not contact their lender, or send mortgage payments to a third party, according to Fannie Mae, which provides fact sheets on mortgage fraud.
2. Loan Documentation Fraud
The Scam: This fraud involves numerous schemes in which a borrower provides inaccurate financial information — such as about their income, assets, and liabilities — or employment status in order to qualify for a loan with lower rates and more favorable terms. Occupancy fraud is one growing area: Borrowers say they plan to live in the property when they actually intend to rent it.
Red Flags: Documentation may raise suspicion if the employer’s address is shown as a post office box, accumulation of assets compared to the person’s income appears too high or low, the new house is too small to accommodate occupants, the person has no credit history, or the application is unsigned or undated, according to Fannie Mae.
3. Appraisal Fraud
The Scam: A faulty appraisal — saying a property is worth more than what it really is — is connected to many types of mortgage fraud. It entails manipulating or overstating comparables, market values, or property characteristics in order to obtain a higher appraisal. The higher property appraisal, which generates false equity, is done by falsifying an appraisal document or using an appraiser accomplice to obtain the higher value.
Red Flags: Be skeptical of appraisals that are dated prior to the sales contract, list comparable sales that do not contain similarities to the property or are outside the neighborhood, the owner is not the seller listed on the contract or the title, or a third party participating in the transaction orders the appraisal, Freddie Mac warns.
4. Illegal Property Flipping
The Scam: This entails purchasing properties and reselling them at inflated prices. These scams usually involve faulty appraisals and inaccurate loan documents. The property is then refinanced or resold immediately after purchase for an inflated value. The home is purchased at a higher price, often by straw buyers working with the “flipper,” and eventually falls into foreclosure.
Red Flags: Some key things to look for are rapid refinancing of a property; the seller recently having acquired the title or acquiring the title concurrent with the transaction; an appraisal that comes in too high; a property that was recently in foreclosure being purchased at a much lower price than its sales price; or the owner listed on the appraisal and title not matching the seller on the sales contract, according to Fannie Mae.
5. Short Sales Schemes
The Scam: Borrowers owe more than the current value of their home so they fake financial hardship and no longer make their mortgage payments. An accomplice of the borrower then submits a low offer to purchase the property in a short sale agreement. The lender agrees to the short sale, unaware that it was premeditated. The property, after being purchased at the reduced price, is then often resold at the home’s actual value for profit.
Red Flags: The borrower suddenly defaults on the mortgage with no workout discussions with the lender, an immediate offer is made to a lender at a short sale price, the short sale offer is less than current market value, or a cash back is offered at closing to the delinquent borrower (disguised as “repairs” or other payouts, for example) and is not disclosed to the lender, according to Fannie Mae.
You can report instances of suspected mortgage fraud to Stopfraud.gov.
Reprinted from REALTOR® Magazine Online August 2010 with permission of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Help Me Help You
On Sunday I was holding an open house when a neighbor stopped by to say hello. I’ll call her “Mary”. We started talking and Mary mentioned that she had hired a “loan modification company” to modify her existing home loan.
Mary is an intelligent and savvy business woman. She owns her own company and bought her own home. She reads my blog and has seen the articles such as
New Organization Dedicated to Preventing Loan Modification Scams and
HUD Advances Fight Against Loan Modification Scams.
And yet, she still went ahead and took the bait. She is now out $1,500 and no closer to a loan modification.
I feel badly that, somehow, my warnings did not penetrate. So please, tell me what more I can do to get the message out.
Mary is an intelligent and savvy business woman. She owns her own company and bought her own home. She reads my blog and has seen the articles such as
New Organization Dedicated to Preventing Loan Modification Scams and
HUD Advances Fight Against Loan Modification Scams.
And yet, she still went ahead and took the bait. She is now out $1,500 and no closer to a loan modification.
I feel badly that, somehow, my warnings did not penetrate. So please, tell me what more I can do to get the message out.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Reform Bill Retools Lending
From the California Association of Realtors
The Senate passed the financial regulation bill yesterday, which will impact home buyers and lending guidelines. Chief among the changes impacting consumers is the creation a consumer bureau at the Federal Reserve and the requirement that lenders ensure a borrower is able to repay a home loan by verifying income, employment, and credit history.
KEEP THIS IN MIND
• Under the financial regulation bill, at least two categories of mortgages likely will see a dramatic decrease in their availability: interest-only loans and stated-income loans. Both loan types likely would fall short of the government’s definition of “qualified” mortgages and therefore be avoided by many in the lending community.
• Many real estate analysts credit interest-only loans and stated-income loans as contributing factors to the decline of the housing market. With interest-only loans, borrowers pay none of the loan principal for a fixed period, typically 10 years, after which time they must make higher payments for the remaining 20 years of the loan. Unlike other loan products, stated-income loans do not require borrowers to verify their actual income. Only a few lenders continue to offer these loans, and typically only to borrowers with deep cash reserves and large down payments.
• The bill also severely limits the industry practice known as “yield spread premiums,” which in many cases incentivized mortgage brokers and loan officers to sell higher-interest loans to borrowers. The reform bill will no longer allow commissions earned by mortgage brokers and loan officers to be linked to the interest rate, but rather the loan amount. Once the bill takes effect, the total commission and additional fees charged by lenders and others in the mortgage process will be limited to a maximum of 3 percent of the loan amount, not including the real estate commission.
To read the full story, please click here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/realestate/11mort.html?_r=1&ref=realestate
The Senate passed the financial regulation bill yesterday, which will impact home buyers and lending guidelines. Chief among the changes impacting consumers is the creation a consumer bureau at the Federal Reserve and the requirement that lenders ensure a borrower is able to repay a home loan by verifying income, employment, and credit history.
KEEP THIS IN MIND
• Under the financial regulation bill, at least two categories of mortgages likely will see a dramatic decrease in their availability: interest-only loans and stated-income loans. Both loan types likely would fall short of the government’s definition of “qualified” mortgages and therefore be avoided by many in the lending community.
• Many real estate analysts credit interest-only loans and stated-income loans as contributing factors to the decline of the housing market. With interest-only loans, borrowers pay none of the loan principal for a fixed period, typically 10 years, after which time they must make higher payments for the remaining 20 years of the loan. Unlike other loan products, stated-income loans do not require borrowers to verify their actual income. Only a few lenders continue to offer these loans, and typically only to borrowers with deep cash reserves and large down payments.
• The bill also severely limits the industry practice known as “yield spread premiums,” which in many cases incentivized mortgage brokers and loan officers to sell higher-interest loans to borrowers. The reform bill will no longer allow commissions earned by mortgage brokers and loan officers to be linked to the interest rate, but rather the loan amount. Once the bill takes effect, the total commission and additional fees charged by lenders and others in the mortgage process will be limited to a maximum of 3 percent of the loan amount, not including the real estate commission.
To read the full story, please click here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/realestate/11mort.html?_r=1&ref=realestate
Thursday, July 15, 2010
FHA Announces First Look Initiative To Help Communities Stabilize Neighborhoods Hard-Hit By Foreclosure
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today announced a new initiative that gives state and local governments, and nonprofit organizations participating in HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) preference to acquire homes from the Department's inventory of foreclosed properties, commonly known as "HUD homes." The initiative was announced by HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan at the National Council of La Raza annual conference in San Antonio, Texas.
A Notice outlining this temporary initiative will be published this week in the Federal Register. This Notice details how the sale of HUD Homes under the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA's) First Look Sales Method will align NSP and FHA requirements to provide NSP grantees an exclusive option to purchase HUD homes before they are marketed to other purchasers.
"This First Look initiative is a marriage of two programs to accelerate our effort to confront property abandonment in communities struggling to overcome the effects of the foreclosure crisis," said Secretary Donovan. "By essentially giving our NSP grantees a first bite at the apple, we hope to accelerate the sale of FHA's foreclosed properties while supporting the Obama Administration's neighborhood stabilization efforts."
Through the FHA First Look Sales Method, HUD will offer NSP grantees a preference ("First Look") to acquire available HUD homes within the defined boundaries of NSP-designated areas. Furthermore, First Look will provide NSP purchasers with the opportunity to purchase FHA properties at a discount of 10 percent below their appraised value, less the cost of any applicable listing and sales commissions.
The FHA-NSP First Look period will last approximately 14 days from the conveyance of a property to FHA. Properties that remain unpurchased at the expiration of the First Look period will be listed and sold according to standard FHA procedures. Eligible NSP grantees may acquire these properties with the assistance of NSP funds for any eligible use under NSP, including rental or homeownership. This sales method becomes effective today and continues through May 31, 2013.
HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created to address the housing crisis, create jobs, and grow local economies by providing communities with the resources to purchase and rehabilitate vacant homes. NSP grants are helping state and local governments, as well as non-profit developers, acquire land and property; demolish or rehabilitate abandoned properties; and/or offer downpayment and closing cost assistance to low- to middle-income homebuyers. Grantees can also stabilize neighborhoods by creating "land banks" to assemble, temporarily manage, and dispose of foreclosed homes.
FHA employs a variety of methods to sell its foreclosed properties in a manner that expands homeownership opportunities, strengthens neighborhoods and communities, and ensures a maximum return to the mortgage insurance fund. Additional information about the sale and purchase of FHA single family properties is available on HUD's website.
A Notice outlining this temporary initiative will be published this week in the Federal Register. This Notice details how the sale of HUD Homes under the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA's) First Look Sales Method will align NSP and FHA requirements to provide NSP grantees an exclusive option to purchase HUD homes before they are marketed to other purchasers.
"This First Look initiative is a marriage of two programs to accelerate our effort to confront property abandonment in communities struggling to overcome the effects of the foreclosure crisis," said Secretary Donovan. "By essentially giving our NSP grantees a first bite at the apple, we hope to accelerate the sale of FHA's foreclosed properties while supporting the Obama Administration's neighborhood stabilization efforts."
Through the FHA First Look Sales Method, HUD will offer NSP grantees a preference ("First Look") to acquire available HUD homes within the defined boundaries of NSP-designated areas. Furthermore, First Look will provide NSP purchasers with the opportunity to purchase FHA properties at a discount of 10 percent below their appraised value, less the cost of any applicable listing and sales commissions.
The FHA-NSP First Look period will last approximately 14 days from the conveyance of a property to FHA. Properties that remain unpurchased at the expiration of the First Look period will be listed and sold according to standard FHA procedures. Eligible NSP grantees may acquire these properties with the assistance of NSP funds for any eligible use under NSP, including rental or homeownership. This sales method becomes effective today and continues through May 31, 2013.
HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created to address the housing crisis, create jobs, and grow local economies by providing communities with the resources to purchase and rehabilitate vacant homes. NSP grants are helping state and local governments, as well as non-profit developers, acquire land and property; demolish or rehabilitate abandoned properties; and/or offer downpayment and closing cost assistance to low- to middle-income homebuyers. Grantees can also stabilize neighborhoods by creating "land banks" to assemble, temporarily manage, and dispose of foreclosed homes.
FHA employs a variety of methods to sell its foreclosed properties in a manner that expands homeownership opportunities, strengthens neighborhoods and communities, and ensures a maximum return to the mortgage insurance fund. Additional information about the sale and purchase of FHA single family properties is available on HUD's website.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
IRS Clamps Down on Fraudulent Home Buyer Tax Credits
Interim Report issued on June 17, 2010
Highlights of Reference Number: 2010-41-069 to the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner for the Wage and Investment Division.
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
Homebuyers who purchased a home in 2008, 2009, or 2010 may be able to take advantage of the First-Time Homebuyer Credit. The Credit may be an interest-free loan or a fully refundable Credit depending on when the taxpayer purchased his or her home.
Fraudulent and erroneous Credits totaling millions of dollars in refunds were issued, which increases an already burgeoning Federal deficit.
WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
The First-Time Homebuyer Credit as expressed in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 has been revised and extended by two subsequent bills. Taxpayers may be confused regarding which version of the Credit they qualify for, and unscrupulous individuals may make fraudulent claims for the refundable Credit.
The President of the United States has called on Federal agencies to ensure that recovery funds are used for authorized purposes and that every step is taken to prevent fraud, waste, error, and abuse. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) faces significant challenges to ensure that the recovery funds it administers are used for authorized purposes. This report contains interim results of two audits. The overall objectives of these two audits are to determine whether the IRS has controls in place that effectively identify erroneous claims for the Credit and to determine whether the IRS has controls in place to ensure claims for the Credit claimed on amended income tax returns are appropriately processed.
WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The IRS has taken a number of positive steps to strengthen controls and help prevent inappropriate Credits from being issued. Primary among these controls was the implementation of filters to identify questionable claims for the Credit before they are processed.
However, additional controls are necessary to address erroneous claims for the Credit. Further, fraudulent and questionable claims processed prior to implementation of controls will need followup action by the IRS.
Control weaknesses allowed fraudulent claims filed by prison inmates totaling an estimated $9.1 million to be processed. Multiple claims for the same home were allowed. In addition, claims totaling an estimated $17.6 million were allowed for homes purchased prior to the dates allowed by the law.
Many questionable claims for the Credit made on amended tax returns were not appropriately sent to the IRS’ Examination function for scrutiny.
Further, TIGTA found additional IRS employees that had made questionable claims for the Credit.
WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED
TIGTA recommended that the IRS ensure that steps are taken to reconcile Prisoner Files from year to year. The IRS should also ensure that erroneous Credits received by prisoners and by taxpayers claiming homes that do not qualify for the Credit (including those filed on amended returns) are identified and recovered through post-refund examination activities.
IRS management agreed with all of the recommendations. Management plans to continue to explore ways to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the Prisoner File and plans to take steps to ensure that the claims made by prisoners are given high priority and are subject to post-refund examinations. In addition, the IRS plans to provide additional compliance scrutiny to all other inappropriate claims.
Highlights of Reference Number: 2010-41-069 to the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner for the Wage and Investment Division.
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
Homebuyers who purchased a home in 2008, 2009, or 2010 may be able to take advantage of the First-Time Homebuyer Credit. The Credit may be an interest-free loan or a fully refundable Credit depending on when the taxpayer purchased his or her home.
Fraudulent and erroneous Credits totaling millions of dollars in refunds were issued, which increases an already burgeoning Federal deficit.
WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
The First-Time Homebuyer Credit as expressed in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 has been revised and extended by two subsequent bills. Taxpayers may be confused regarding which version of the Credit they qualify for, and unscrupulous individuals may make fraudulent claims for the refundable Credit.
The President of the United States has called on Federal agencies to ensure that recovery funds are used for authorized purposes and that every step is taken to prevent fraud, waste, error, and abuse. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) faces significant challenges to ensure that the recovery funds it administers are used for authorized purposes. This report contains interim results of two audits. The overall objectives of these two audits are to determine whether the IRS has controls in place that effectively identify erroneous claims for the Credit and to determine whether the IRS has controls in place to ensure claims for the Credit claimed on amended income tax returns are appropriately processed.
WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The IRS has taken a number of positive steps to strengthen controls and help prevent inappropriate Credits from being issued. Primary among these controls was the implementation of filters to identify questionable claims for the Credit before they are processed.
However, additional controls are necessary to address erroneous claims for the Credit. Further, fraudulent and questionable claims processed prior to implementation of controls will need followup action by the IRS.
Control weaknesses allowed fraudulent claims filed by prison inmates totaling an estimated $9.1 million to be processed. Multiple claims for the same home were allowed. In addition, claims totaling an estimated $17.6 million were allowed for homes purchased prior to the dates allowed by the law.
Many questionable claims for the Credit made on amended tax returns were not appropriately sent to the IRS’ Examination function for scrutiny.
Further, TIGTA found additional IRS employees that had made questionable claims for the Credit.
WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED
TIGTA recommended that the IRS ensure that steps are taken to reconcile Prisoner Files from year to year. The IRS should also ensure that erroneous Credits received by prisoners and by taxpayers claiming homes that do not qualify for the Credit (including those filed on amended returns) are identified and recovered through post-refund examination activities.
IRS management agreed with all of the recommendations. Management plans to continue to explore ways to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the Prisoner File and plans to take steps to ensure that the claims made by prisoners are given high priority and are subject to post-refund examinations. In addition, the IRS plans to provide additional compliance scrutiny to all other inappropriate claims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)