DONOVAN ANNOUNCES RECOVERY ACT’S HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT CAN IMMEDIATELY HELP THOUSANDS OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS TO BUY A HOME

June 16th, 2009

HUD No. 09-072

Lemar Wooley

(202) 708-0685

www.hud.gov/news/index.cfm For Release

FHA plan will stimulate new home sales and help stabilize housing market

WASHINGTON – Speaking to the National Association of Home Builders Spring Board of Directors Meeting, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan today announced that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will allow homebuyers to apply the Obama Administration’s new $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit toward the purchase costs of a FHA-insured home. Donovan said that today’s action will help stabilize the nation’s housing market by stimulating home sales across the country.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers homebuyers a tax credit of up to $8,000 for purchasing their first home. Families can only access this credit after filing their tax returns with the IRS. Today’s announcement details FHA’s rules allowing state Housing Finance Agencies and certain non-profits to “monetize” up to the full amount of the tax credit (depending on the amount of the mortgage) so that borrowers can immediately apply the funds toward their down payments. Home buyers using FHA-approved lenders can apply the tax credit to their down payment in excess of 3.5 percent of appraised value or their closing costs, which can help achieve a lower interest rate. To read the FHA’s new mortgagee letter, visit HUD’s website or click here.

“We believe this is a real win for everyone,” said Donovan. “Today, the Obama Administration is taking another important step toward accelerating the recovery of the nation’s housing market. Families will now be able to apply their anticipated tax credit toward their home purchase right away. At the same time we are putting safeguards in place to ensure that consumers will be protected from unscrupulous lenders. What we’re doing today will not only help these families to purchase their first home but will present an enormous benefit for communities struggling to deal with an oversupply of housing.”

Currently, borrowers applying for an FHA-insured mortgage are required to make a minimum 3.5 percent downpayment on the purchase of their home. Current law does not permit approved lenders to monetize the tax credit to meet the required 3.5 percent minimum down payment, but, under the terms of today’s announcement, lenders can now monetize the tax credit for use as additional down payment, or for other closing costs, which can help achieve a lower interest rate. Buyers financing through state Housing Finance Agencies and certain non-profits will be able to use the tax credit for their downpayments via secondary financing provided by the HFA or non-profit. In addition to the borrower’s own cash investment, FHA allows parents, employers and other governmental entities to contribute towards the downpayment. Today’s action permits the first-time homebuyer’s anticipated tax credit under the Recovery Act to be applied toward the family’s home purchase right away. Unlike seller-funded down-payment assistance, which was a vehicle for abuse, this program will allow homebuyers to shop for the best home price and services using their anticipated tax credit.

According to estimates by the National Association of Home Builders, the Administration’s homebuyer tax credit will stimulate 160,000 home sales across the nation – 101,000 of which will be first-time buyers who will receive the credit. Another 59,000 existing homeowners will be able to buy another home because a first-time buyer purchased their home. Given FHA’s current market share, it’s estimated that thousands of families will be able to purchase a home by allowing the anticipated tax credit to be applied toward their purchase together with an FHA-insured mortgage.

Homebuyers should beware of mortgage scams and carefully compare benefits and costs when seeking out tax credit monetization services. Programs will vary from organization to organization and borrowers should consider whether the services make sense for them, as well as what company offers the most suitable and affordable option.

For every FHA borrower who is assisted through the tax credit program, FHA will collect the name and employer identification number of the organization providing the service as well as associated fees and charges. FHA will use this information to track the business closely and will refer any questionable practices to the appropriate regulatory agencies, as necessary.

###

HUD is the nation’s housing agency committed to sustaining homeownership; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes economic and community development and enforces the nation’s fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and espanol.hud.gov.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Any-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit

June 16th, 2009

By: DIANA GOLOBAY

A new bill introduced in the House Thursday, HR  2801 or Home Ownership Moves the Economy (HOME) Act of 2009, aims to make the current $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit available to literally anyone that purchases a primary residence through the end of 2010.

The bill, introduced by Howard Coble (R-N.C.), extends the current tax break to anyone “who purchases a principal residence” through Jan. 1, 2011. It also lifts the income limitation (currently, singles earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000 are disqualified) but keeps the $8,000 maximum credit, depending on the value of the home.

The bill extends the repayment waiver to account for the extended credit availability. Current law states the tax credit does not have to be repaid unless the home owner sells the property or no longer uses it as a primary residence within 36 months of purchase. Extending the waiver, according to Coble, provides fair treatment of home owners that purchase within the extended deadline.

And all of this, Coble says, encourages home ownership and sparks the housing market as well as the economy:

“As we have seen in the past, when the real estate market is thriving, so is the rest of our economy. Now we are experiencing the dire consequences of a slumping housing market. I believe our HOME Act of 2009 would convince many who are sitting on the fence right now to climb down and purchase a new home. Our entire economy would be the beneficiary of these new sales. Extending the tax credit to all home purchases could be just the boost our housing market needs.”

He’s not alone in pushing for broader financial incentives for home purchases. Georgia State governor Sonny Perdue on May 11 signed HB 261 into law, making up to $1,800 (or 1.2% of the purchase price, whichever is less) in tax credit available to home buyers. The state tax credit, taken over three years, is in excess of the federal tax credit for qualifying first-time home buyers. It applies to all home buyers within six months of the law’s enactment.

The Federal Housing Administration recently began allowing home buyers to “monetize” the federal home buyer tax credit toward closing costs on FHA-insured mortgages. The credit cannot count as the buyer’s minimum 3.5% down payment, but can be put toward other closing costs up front through a short-term loan the borrower repays after filing his or her income tax return.

The efforts to broaden the availability of federal dollars toward home purchases looks socially responsible on paper, especially as underwriting standards among lenders across the nation have tightened since the housing bubble fallout began.

But the principle of taxpayer money incentives for (albeit qualifying) borrowers to obtain government-insured mortgages raises questions, namely:

If the tax credit’s intended audience would not otherwise purchase a home outside of thousands of dollars from Uncle Sam, doesn’t it create somewhat of a false housing demand?

The broad argument surrounding the cause of the housing bubble generally states that risky lending practices allowed people into home ownership who could not reasonably afford payments. What began this year as a temporary stimulus to get the housing market on its feet again looks to turn into a broad tax credit for just about anyone that purchases a home, if Coble’s bill gains momentum.

Even if house prices increase under a permanent housing stimulus, they would stem from an exaggerated level of demand, so a government-subsidized housing bubble may be in the works.

  • Share/Bookmark

MBA Supports Proposal for $15,000 Tax Credit for All Homebuyers

June 16th, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 15, 2009) – David G. Kittle, CMB, Chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association issued the following statement today in support of S. 1230, The Homebuyer Tax Credit Act of 2009.

“Stimulating the housing market is one of the best ways Congress can help accelerate the recovery of our national economy. Offering $15,000 to potential homebuyers is a powerful incentive that I believe will jumpstart the housing market.

“The current $8,000 credit for first-time buyers has had a positive effect on the housing market this year. Increasing the amount and expanding the benefit to include all homebuyers will have an even larger impact in spurring the housing market and stabilizing the economy.

“As this bipartisan proposal moves forward, we hope that policy makers will make the tax credit refundable as a tax refund if the person’s tax liability is less than the amount of the credit, so borrowers can take full advantage of this benefit. In addition, we believe that the tax credit ought to be made available at the closing table. One of the greatest hurdles for many homebuyers is saving money for their down payment. If this money could be made available at the closing table, as FHA has done with the existing tax credit for first-time homebuyers, it will have the potential to help even more borrowers.”

A letter to U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who introduced S. 1230, can be found here: 69258_FullLetter.

###

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) is the national association representing the real estate finance industry, an industry that employs more than 280,000 people in virtually every community in the country. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the association works to ensure the continued strength of the nation’s residential and commercial real estate markets; to expand homeownership and extend access to affordable housing to all Americans. MBA promotes fair and ethical lending practices and fosters professional excellence among real estate finance employees through a wide range of educational programs and a variety of publications. Its membership of over 2,400 companies includes all elements of real estate finance: mortgage companies, mortgage brokers, commercial banks, thrifts, Wall Street conduits, life insurance companies and others in the mortgage lending field. For additional information, visit MBA’s Web site: www.mortgagebankers.org.

  • Share/Bookmark

Legal quirk lets anyone sue firms over old patents

June 13th, 2009

By MATTHEW BARAKAT
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) – Look carefully at the lid to your coffee cup or the handle of your disposable razor. A recent ruling on an obscure, century-old statute has opened the door for people familiar with the finer points of patent law to sue companies that stamp their products with expired patent numbers.  A couple of sharp-eyed lawyers are shooting for a financial windfall through the nearly forgotten law, and the Justice Department says they have a case.  The ruling in federal court in Alexandria appears to be the first of its kind upholding the constitutionality of a law allowing anyone to sue in the name of the government if they have evidence that a company is guilty of “false markings” – namely, claiming patent protections that have expired or never existed.  The person who sues gets to keep half of any money awarded, with the rest going to the government. Damages of up to $500 per violation are allowed, which for mass-produced items with “Patent” stamped on every product could theoretically run into billions of dollars.  Despite the financial incentive to sue, lawyers in the Virginia case say no one other than businesses with a financial stake availed themselves of the law.  No one, that is, until Matthew Pequignot.  

A Washington patent attorney, Pequignot (PECK’-eh-naw) noticed the patent marks on the lid to his daily cup of coffee, did some research and found that the lid’s maker, Solo Cup Co., was continuing to claim patent protections for disposable lids that had expired nearly 20 years ago. Depending on a variety of factors, most patents expire after a set period of time, often after 14 to 20 years.  In 2007, he sued Highland Park, Ill.-based Solo Cup, which makes the red and blue plastic cups seen at parties and barbecues and also supplies disposable cups and lids to retailers like Starbucks and McDonald’s.  Pequignot says the lawsuit addresses a problem in the patent community: companies using false marks to make products look impressive or to scare off competitors, who must do significant legal work to research the patents. He likens false patent marks to placing “No trespassing” signs in public park lands.
Pequignot followed the Solo Cup case by suing razor company Gillette, owned by Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co., and Arrow Fastener Co. Inc., a manufacturer of staplers and similar products. The case against Saddle Brook, N.J.-based Arrow has been withdrawn, but Pequignot retains the right to revive it.  Gillette is seeking to dismiss the case, arguing Pequignot shouldn’t be allowed to sue unless he can show Gillette acted with “an intent to deceive.”  ”False markings claims come cheap: They damage defendants’ reputations. … Numerous complaints can be filed at almost no cost,” Gillette’s lawyers wrote, noting Pequignot’s multiple lawsuits.

In the Solo Cup case, court papers indicate Pequignot offered to settle for $9 million. Instead, Solo Cup argued that allowing a private citizen to sue on behalf of the government is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. Solo Cup also argued the law violates constitutional requirements that a plaintiff must suffer some type of harm to bring a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema concluded in March that the provision allowing Pequignot to sue in the name of the government, though rare, is constitutional. Called “qui tam” statutes, most have been repealed because of concerns they were being abused.  Despite Brinkema’s ruling, there are still concerns over the law’s use. In May, a federal judge in New York tossed out a similar lawsuit filed by a patent attorney who sued Brooks Brothers over expired patents on its “original Adjustolox” bow tie.  The judge ruled that if the plaintiff, Raymond E. Stauffer, wants to sue on behalf of the United States, he must prove the government suffered harm, a standard he said Stauffer failed to meet.

Brinkema, on the other hand, said in her ruling that the U.S. suffered harm by the very fact that its laws were being broken.  The Justice Department is siding with Brinkema. On May 29, the government moved to intervene on Stauffer’s behalf and said the New York judge’s analysis is flawed.  Neil Friedman, the lawyer who represented Brooks Brothers, likened Stauffer and Pequignot to “bounty hunters” looking to collect an easy payoff. He said he is aware of several similar lawsuits that have been filed since the Pequignot and Stauffer’s cases. Pequignot, for his part, says he does not expect an avalanche of false markings lawsuits, despite the fact that Stauffer and some others have already followed in his footsteps. He said that, even as a patent attorney, it took him many hours of research to be able to file his lawsuit.

Dennis Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri and author of the Patently-O blog, said lawsuits like Pequignot’s had been “almost unheard of” before his filing. He said the effect could be significant, though, since he estimates there are millions of false markings in the marketplace.  In her ruling, Brinkema suggested Congress may want to close the loophole.  ”It is likely an accident of history that (the law) survives as one of the few remaining qui tam statutes in American law,” Brinkema wrote in her opinion which grudgingly acknowledged Pequignot’s right to move forward with his case.  With the law’s constitutionality upheld, Solo Cup says it plans to offer a “good-faith” defense that it relied on lawyers’ advice and did not intend to deceive.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

  • Share/Bookmark

New MERS Program Improves Mortgage Transparency

June 10th, 2009

New Program Improves Mortgage Transparency
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEmers_logo For more information, contact:
Karmela Lejarde, Communications Manager
(703) 761-1274

Reston, Va., June 8, 2009- In support of new federal legislation designed to assist homeowners in staying in their homes, MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS) has unveiled a new program that will inform borrowers of changes to the owner of their loan, bringing greater transparency and accountability to the mortgage lending process.

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, signed by President Obama on May 20, 2009, amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and requires that, when a loan secured by the primary home of the borrower is sold, transferred or assigned, the new owner of the loan notify the borrower in writing of the transfer of ownership within thirty days.

Because MERS is the real estate finance industry’s utility, and the repository of information on over 60 million loans registered by lenders on the MERS® System, the company has unveiled a program that will inform the borrower of future changes to the investor when the loan is registered on the MERS® System. The MERS® InvestorID program will automatically send a Mortgage Transfer Notice to the primary borrower when the ownership of their loan changes on the MERS® System. MERS members with their own notification solution can opt out of using MERS® InvestorID.

“We are excited to support Congress and the Obama Administration’s efforts to help distressed borrowers stay in their homes,” said R.K. Arnold, MERS President and CEO. “This program will be another tool for the real estate finance industry and the Administration’s efforts to bring greater transparency and accountability to the mortgage lending process.”

For more information on MERS® InvestorID, contact MERS at 800-646-6377.

ABOUT MERSCORP, Inc.
MERS is a utility launched by the real estate finance industry to streamline lending practices. In support of this mission, MERS operates several products that eliminate paper from the lending process. The company established the MERS® System, an electronic loan registry that removes the need for assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans, and the MERS® eRegistry, a system of record that identifies the owner (Controller) and custodian (Location) for registered eNotes. To learn more about MERS, visit www.mersinc.org.

  • Share/Bookmark

Huddleston Law Offices site specially formatted for iPhone, Blackberry, PDAs.

June 9th, 2009

People are depending more and more on their cell phones and PDAs to be able to search on the Web, with new search products for such instruments being launched left and right. Not surprisingly, websites often are playing catch-up.

Huddleston Law Offices knows how important it is to ensure that its website content is optimized for mobile search tools.  There are currently over 200 million wireless subscribers who are using the mobile Web while on the run.  Our site content addresses the needs of mobile users, and considers what is important to users in the mobile context.

Huddleston Law Offices mobile site uses the following best practices:iphone

- Don’t use frames or Flash.

- Give different keyword-rich file names.

- Use optimized heading tags.

- Don’t rely on embedded images, objects or scripts.

- Minimize file size.

- Submit your site to major mobile search engines.

“On the whole, clients and vistors to Huddleston Law Offices mobile website will spend as little time as possible getting to the information that they need.” – Brian Huddleston

  • Share/Bookmark

Judge Affirms Ruling On HB 1804

June 1st, 2009

Last week Tulsa County District Judge Jefferson Sellers upheld the constitutionality of a state law dealing with immigration, except for one aspect. That exception involved a provision in the law that Judge Sellers determined was not germane to immigration issues.  Sellers rejected allegations in a Tulsa County lawsuit that the law known as House Bill 1804, enacted in 2007, created a Bureau of Immigration in Oklahoma and allowed for appropriation and expenditure of public funds in violation of the state constitution.

Small business owners should be aware of the private employer provisions of this law that state that an American citizen who is fired from a company can file a discrimination lawsuit if the company retains an illegal immigrant “who the employing entity knows, or reasonably should have known, is an unauthorized alien hired after July 1, 2008, and who is working in Oklahoma in a job category that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility” as the fired employee.

  • Share/Bookmark

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

June 1st, 2009

Below is the full text of a new Federal law (Public Law 111-022, May 20, 2009) that requires 90 days notice to quit for tenants living in dwellings or residential property, unless the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms length transaction that requires the payment of ”not substantially less than fair market rent,” in which case the tenant can usually stay until the end of the lease.There is one major exception to this rule:  If the purchaser of the property sells it to someone who will occupy it as a primary residence, the purchaser may terminate the lease as of the date of the sale, subject to the requirement of the 90-day notice to quit.  The act sunsets at the end of 2012.

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
________________________________________
TITLE VII–PROTECTING TENANTS AT FORECLOSURE ACT
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 ‘.
SEC. 702. EFFECT OF FORECLOSURE ON PREEXISTING TENANCY.
(a) In General- In the case of any foreclosure on a federally-related mortgage loan or on any dwelling or residential real property after the date of enactment of this title, any immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to–
(1) the provision, by such successor in interest of a notice to vacate to any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice; and
(2) the rights of any bona fide tenant, as of the date of such notice of foreclosure –
(A) under any bona fide lease entered into before the notice of foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease, except that a successor in interest may terminate a lease effective on the date of sale of the unit to a purchaser who will occupy the unit as a primary residence, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90 day notice under paragraph (1); or
(B) without a lease or with a lease terminable at will under State law, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90 day notice under subsection (1),
except that nothing under this section shall affect the requirements for termination of any Federal- or State-subsidized tenancy or of any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants .
(b) Bona Fide Lease or Tenancy- For purposes of this section, a lease or tenancy shall be considered bona fide only if–
(1) the mortgagor under the contract is not the tenant;
(2) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms-length transaction; or
(3) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property.
(c) Definition- For purposes of this section, the term `federally-related mortgage loan’ has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2602).
SEC. 703. EFFECT OF FORECLOSURE ON SECTION 8 TENANCIES.
Section 8(o)(7) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(7)) is amended–
(1) by inserting before the semicolon in subparagraph (C) the following: `and in the case of an owner who is an immediate successor in interest pursuant to foreclosure during the initial term of the lease vacating the property prior to sale shall not constitute other good cause, except that the owner may terminate the tenancy effective on the date of transfer of the unit to the owner if the owner–
(i) will occupy the unit as a primary residence; and
(ii) has provided the tenant a notice to vacate at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice.’; and
(2) by inserting at the end of subparagraph (F) the following: `In the case of any foreclosure on any federally-related mortgage loan (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2602)) or on any residential real property in which a recipient of assistance under this subsection resides, the immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to the lease between the prior owner and the tenant and to the housing assistance payments contract between the prior owner and the public housing agency for the occupied unit, except that this provision and the provisions related to foreclosure in subparagraph (C) shall not shall not affect any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants .’.
SEC. 704. SUNSET.
This title, and any amendments made by this title are repealed, and the requirements under this title shall terminate, on December 31, 2012.

  • Share/Bookmark
  • Visit Brian on LinkedIn

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Enter your email address here for updates:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

© 2009 Huddleston Law Offices