The Probate Process in California - What to Expect!

July 31st, 2008

Probate Process in California?

The probate process in California begins with a legal request or petition that opens the estate and names a PR or personal representative who takes care of the deceased’s property. An official Notice for Creditors is published in newspaper and a notice of same is sent to all the involved parties. Creditors are then given a set amount of time to file their claims depending upon the estimated time published in the notice. The PR then clears all the debts and dues remained in the name of deceased person and distribute the remaining estate to his close relative. Finally, the petition for discharge is filed and the estate is closed.

This is the normal process of probate in California. The process involves many smaller steps which had to taken care of during the whole legal process. In many cases when the property balance is more than speculated or has some tax liability to it then a tax consultant or a CPA is to be hired who estimates the overall pricing of the estate.

Below we show you how the legal procedure of Probate in California runs:

Probate - First Phase
- Original Will and Codicils are filed
- Legal Notice of Petition is published to the Administer Estate
- Notice of Petition is filed and published in the local newspaper
- Proof of Will and Codicils are filed for further enquiry
- A letter is issued to all interested parties.

Probate - Second Phase
- Application for Employer Identification Number
- Income tax return and other legal taxes are filed
- Opening estate bank account and arrange for tax returns
- A mail with legal notice is sent to debtors and claims are cleared
- Approval or refusal of claims are made
- Property is listed for sale
- A petition is filed for Confirmation of Property Sale
- Court hearings are made and any final federal taxes are cleared

Probate Third Phase
- Final petition is filed for distribution
- A notice is sent to heirs and beneficiaries
- Proof of mail is filed with court
- Final order of petition is filed
- Transfer of assets and properties is cleared

If in case there are any living spouse or relatives of the deceased the property is distributed in a legal way among them without giving benefit to a single person. The California state law has the rules according to which the reaming estate is distributed. The court has the final verdict on the sale or distribution of property. If a bid is overbid by any person during the hearing then the property is transferred to the highest bidder.

This is a simple explanation of probate process in California. We are only describing the legal process. It is advised to contact an attorney for proper legal procedure. You can find more detailed information in Sections 6400-6413 of the California Probate Code.

If you are in need of an attorney please feel free to e-mail me, I will send you a list of attorneys in Los Angeles.

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Investing-Off Plan in Italy

July 30th, 2008

Investing off-plan is where a purchaser makes a commitment to buy from a developer a property that has not yet been built or is in the process of being built. This type of investment hides a number of risks, the major one being the builder going bankrupt and the buyer losing his money. The Italian legislation provides a number of protections for the buyers of such type of properties. The law 122/2005 declare the obligation of the builder to offer a surety bond. This is to guarantee the buyer for the money deposited prior to the transfer of ownership of the property, in case of bankruptcy or default. According to art.1 of Law 122/2005 the builder is obliged to offer such surety bond at the latest at the moment of the signature of the Preliminary Contract. In absence of such surety bond the Preliminary Contract will be considered void unless the buyer explicitly wants it to produce its effect. The surety has to be clearly mentioned in the Preliminary Contract. According to article 2 of Law 122/2005 the surety needs to be a Bank, Insurance Company or a Financial Broker authorized by Bank of Italy.

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 29th, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 28th, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 27th, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 26th, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act - A Land Mine Ready to Explode For Condo Developers?

July 25th, 2008

The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (”ILSA”) is a federal law which was passed in the late 1960s to protect buyers of out-of-state land. Those were the days when parcels of vacant land might be advertised to far-flung speculators as promising wonderful development opportunities. Only once the land was purchased and the purchaser traveled to take a look at the parcel for the first time, it would turn out to be a worthless, isolated patch of desert or swamp with little or no potential to access the infrastructure or resources needed to sustain a viable development project.

In the years since ILSA was passed, the law has been held to apply to condominium developments. And as real estate market watchers know, pre-construction condo investments in places like South Florida may appear to present many of the same problems that vacant land sales once did. In particular, pre-construction condos are advertised as glamorous out-of-state investment opportunities — a chance to make money while literally owning a cutting-edge piece of paradise. But the glamour wears off quickly once the market takes a downward turn and the buyer is unable to resell the property, whereupon he or she scrutinizes the development with a critical eye. At this point, the buyer detects ways in which the building (which may not yet be fully constructed) deviates from what he or she believes was promised before signing the purchase agreement, and the buyer begins to feel cheated.

One of the significant requirements of ILSA is that the developer register the development with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (”HUD”) and furnish a thick “Property Report” to the buyer before he or she signs the purchase agreement. Not surprisingly, developers don’t want to comply with this somewhat onerous requirement if they don’t absolutely have to. And in fact, there are a number of exemptions which developers can take advantage in order to avoid the registration and Property Report requirement.

One particularly important exemption, which is widely misunderstood, is the so-called “two-year” exemption. Generally speaking, a developer does not need to register with HUD and provide a Property Report if the developer provides a contractual commitment to build the development within two years after the date the buyer signs the purchase agreement. However, the “two year” exemption is not as straightforward as it may seem, because while developers may seek to “qualify” any two year commitment by limiting the buyer’s remedies in the event that the two-year deadline is missed, Florida court are rather strict in their interpretation of the exemption such that the developer may actually lose the exemption if it qualifies the two-year deadline in such a manner.

Of special importance on this last point is 15 U.S.C. section 1703(c), a section of ILSA which provides that in the event a Property Report is required but the buyer is not provided one prior to signing the purchase agreement, the buyer has the option of revoking the contract. Given the current real estate market, it is unsurprising that there a number of cases currently on the docket in Florida state and federal courts allege that buyers (who are seeking to get out of their condo contracts) were not provided a Property Report when they should have been. Time will tell whether the courts agree with these buyers and find that the failure to provide a Property Report is an adequate basis to cancel their contracts. (See here for my previous article on issues relating to the buyer’s right to rescission under Florida state law, which is distinct from the federal law remedy under ILSA).

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 24th, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 23rd, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

Divorce & Home Foreclosure in Arizona

July 22nd, 2008

With Arizona’s (and the rest of the country’s) current depressed real estate market, many people are facing foreclosures. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The foreclosure is going to continue on in most divorce circumstances unless the home’s mortgage is brought current, along with the reasonable costs associated with the foreclosure, including attorney fees.

2. Arizona has an anti-deficiency statute that is going to apply in the majority of cases involving standard mortgages. Thus, Arizona law offers protection to homeowners whose home has been foreclosed. This statute, A.R.S. §33-729, states as follows:

33-729. Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

A. Except as provided in subsection B, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

Interpreted, this statute means that for the average homeowner, a lender cannot seek to recover from the homeowner any shortages when the foreclosing bank sells the house for less than the outstanding mortgage amount. The second part of the statute is interesting, but reasonable, in that it references voluntary waste -if, for example, a homeowner angry at the foreclosing bank wrecks his/her home intentionally, the homeowner may be responsible for the effect the damage has on the home’s value.

So what options does a homeowner have in a divorce situation or otherwise? Here are a few:

1. Let the bank foreclose on the property. The foreclosure in most circumstances will absolve the homeowner from most or all further financial responsibilities but will not reflect well on the home owner’s credit report. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation prior to assuming that there will be minor or no financial repercussions as there are exceptions to the anti-deficiency provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729. If there are negative financial repercussions, community property principles apply and if a divorce situation exists, then the parties or court will decide the parties responsibility for the financial obligations. Of course, any divorce rulings define the rights and obligations as between the parties only and are not binding on third party creditors, such as mortgage holders, meaning that banks are free to go after both parties if community property/obligations are involved.

2. Bring the mortgage current and retain the property. The homeowner will have to pay additional fees/costs to do so but then will continue to own the property.

3. Consider a “short sale” which is an effort to sell the property at a reduced price so that the bank will not have to bother with the time and expense of foreclosure. The bank then accepts the buy-out, basically, with less negative effects on the homeowner. It’s more complex than that but that’s the gist. I recommend that a lawyer guide both the seller and buyer of anyone participating in a short sale situation; as well, a good real estate agent familiar with short sales is recommended. Of course, when the real estate market is better than it is at the time of this writing, selling a house and paying off the mortgage in full is easier than it is now. In addition, some lenders will not agree to short sales because they believe it sets a bad precedent that too many other borrowers will attempt to use. Another piece of the short sale puzzle is the possibility the IRS will consider any amounts forgiven as income (consult an attorney regarding the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 for specifics on that new law and related consequences).

Real estate issues are complex and real property is often the largest asset involved in a divorce. It’s a good idea to consult with a competent attorney prior to making decisions about real estate!

Read more

Posted in Real Estate Law Title | No Comments »

« Previous Entries