Comments on: Distressed Property Law

By: Terry Birkland

Terry Birkland — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:41:55 +0000

LO and Brokers are already licensed. Part of their loan origination job is helping the client understand what they are doing (short of giving legal or tax advice.) When its obvious the client needs go beyond simply getting a loan they should be referred to a professional with the appropiate expertise. I assume a “distressed home owner” is someone who needs more than a LO to make the best of their situation.

By: Chris Madden

Chris Madden — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:08:24 +0000

LO’s and Brokers should not be exempt. I agree with Michael when he said, “whoever is helping the distressed homeowner, and is in a position to make money off of the distressed homeowner, should be covered under the new law”. Because of all the unethical transactions that have occured in the past we need to start holding all in the industry accountable for their part.If everyones on the up and up why should we be worried about increased liability. Bring back accountability, and integry to our industry.

By: LINDA COFFMAN

LINDA COFFMAN — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:22:57 +0000

Should there be new regulation and enforcement would it truly make a difference for distressed homeowners? I don’t think so. All parties involved must make the decision of ensuring the transaction is handled in a professional manner that benefits the consumer first then the pocketbooks of the RE agent and LO.

By: William Platts

William Platts — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:53:45 +0000

Once again we have new govermental regulation, which often comes without the teeth of enforcement hitting the legislative books. Yes, distressed homeowners need protection from the “wolf packs” but I see too many flaws in this attempt of protection that easily could result in real estate professional not wanting to take on distressed clients. Why add to your exposure to legal sanctions. If one wants to take distressed properties on as a specialty, and learn all the ins and outs of the law I can see this as a beneficial law in the real estate industry. However, if there is any indication of increased lack of real estate assistance for the distressed seller due to the added legal title of “distressed home consultant” clauses, the law could be considered counter productive.

By: jason brock

jason brock — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:28:05 +0000

Distressed property Law… This is a stupid law that does not apply or even help consumers and will be soon repealed. Speculation of sometime in 2010. It was snuck in to a bill as a little thing I like to call PORK… What it does is ties the real estate agents hands so that they can not work fully with the client’s best interest in mind. Granted there are a lot of agents out there that have gone on “iwanttobeanagent.com” and printed there $9.99 RE license and are now agents. No they are not… Being an agent is a lot more then just holding a piece of paper… As far as Mortgage professionals being under that law… NO we are not nor should we. I am a professional and no not need more restrictions or liabilities then I already have.

By: Laurie Morgan

Laurie Morgan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:53:30 +0000

It would seem difficult to me to assist the seller’s agent with in a transaction. Distressed properties can be like opening Pandora’s box, and should be sold to a client who understands what the financial implications can be.

In general most agents I’ve worked with do only the minimum required to close a transaction. They need further training to be the professionals the present them selves to be. Maybe a financial penalty would help them be honest.

By: Beth Damery

Beth Damery — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:48:40 +0000

I do not believe that the LO’s should be responsible when helping buyers. The Real Estate Agents have the responsibility to the seller, making the Agent responsible. As a LO I choose to work with Real Estate Agents who are very experienced in this specialty. In my experience it makes a lot more work if the seller’s agent is not trained in this area. I prefer my clients work with an agent who will look out for their best interest.

By: Sharon Eva

Sharon Eva — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:10:34 +0000

I believe mortgage brokers and LO’s should be exempt from becoming “A Distressed Home Consult.” That is the real estate agents job. Our field is to place the borrower in a mortgage and
mixing two job descriptions confuses the process. There may be some loopholes for unethical actions on behalf of the LO/mortgage broker
but I think with guidelines being so strict today, it will be rare.

By: Robert Paterson

Robert Paterson — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:00:05 +0000

Since I specialize in reverse mortgages I don’t get involved in this field at all. I can’t decide if loan officers should be exempt from becoming “A Distressed Home Consult “or not. My general feeling is this,if you go after this sort of business you have a fiduciary client. If you have a fiduciary then you should be held to a high standard. If the law were to cover LO’s then i think it should also cover brokers and lending institutions. I believe the intent of the law was to protect home owners.

By: Chrissie Durrin-wheatman

Chrissie Durrin-wheatman — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:18:33 +0000

No!I do not believe we should be exempt nor should Re agents. I believe the majority of agents and LO don’t have a enough knowledge to guide homeowners through the process and since the law is so poorly writen with loopholes to be “FOUND” for scammer’s
I know the job still needs to be done.But not used as a “new market”I also believe it should be left for a short sale/forecloser lawyer to handle who know’s the in’s and outs of the law and has their own liability’s they follow Then maybe so many would be able to capitalize on it!!

By: Vladislav Baydovskiy

Vladislav Baydovskiy — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:36:37 +0000

I think that LO should be expempt from this law. I think the more liability there is for LO, the less likly they are to trully help a home owner trully in need of help.

By: Mila Usher

Mila Usher — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:30:34 +0000

I agree with Rand. If I were to go to someone for help with my loan it would be the person who helped me get it. As a consumer I would assume that they would know how to help me. So it would seem to be the right thing to have the proper knowledge and be held to the Distressed Property Laws.

By: Rand Wood

Rand Wood — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:36:05 +0000

It seems natural that a “distressed homeowner” may seek the service of a broker or originator. Obviously if we can do something to improve the borrowers financial standing we will. If we cannot better their financial our job should be to advise the borrower to seek proper counsel.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:08:06 +0000

I am also in agreement that LO’s should be exempt. Lo’s are there for the financing advice for the buyer and not the seller. I am however very much for trying to educate the buyer in every way possible at what type of transaction they are getting themselves into. If that means advising them to seek legal advice because their RE agent has not informed them fully, then do it.

By: John Sarausad

John Sarausad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:20:56 +0000

I agree that this law should not include originators. As an LO, we know what our jobs are and we know what other careers within our industry are for. There’s enough business right now for everybody to work together on turning around this market.

By: Kent Kiser

Kent Kiser — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:56:45 +0000

I am also both a real estate agent and loan originator. As a loan originator I too think we should be exempt. As far as the real estate side, there should be some level of accountability although as many of you posted the law is written so poorly that there are so many loopholes in it.

By: Dennis Tyler

Dennis Tyler — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:43:49 +0000

I couldn’t agree more with Roger. The law is a poor attempt at regulation. We do have a fiduciary responsibility to act in our client’s best interest. Our client is the borrower. If we get involved with the seller, it seems that we are potentially practicing real estate without a license as well as law. No… the law should not include originators. Our reglulations are sufficient. We each just need to live by the spirit of the law and do the right thing. No degree of regulations will keep the thiefs away. Yes, the law should be re-written.

By: Roger Ingalls

Roger Ingalls — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:34:29 +0000

Why on earth should the LO, who is presumably helping the BUYER attain the best terms for financing, be fiduciary to the SELLER of the property?

It is an exceedingly rare situation that an LO will talk to the property seller (I never have).

Honestly, that is just absurd.

What lender will make a new loan to a distressed homeowner these days? Hard money guys, maybe, if the LTV is VERY low, but with very high rates of interest and fees.

Let’s remember who we work for, and not try to be fiduciaries to parties with opposing interests.

By: Brian Paine

Brian Paine — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:34:15 +0000

As a Loan Originator I believe I should be exempt; however, I don’t believe that’s the issue. A law was created to protect the consumer in a difficult era of home ownership. Consumer education seems to be the greater issue, passing along helpful resources, put those in the hands of brokers to pass along to LO’s to pass to consumers who via email in this digital age can reach a majority of consumers…that’s one route. There will always be those who look to feed on the uneducated, laws or no laws, the ones that care won’t break the current law as it is and the others will find the loopholes; therefore, it’s wasted time, not helping the consumers at all.

By: Richard Davis

Richard Davis — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:33:54 +0000

The law is vague and does not cover it. We do not do contracts for property. I do believe we need to visit our responsibility in the transaction and disclose the choices that a client may have. I do not think distress property law makes sense on the lending industry.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:43:23 +0000

Again, brokers and LO’s are called to the table to be held at a higher standard. I do think that brokers and LO’s should be exempt. I am sure someday a mandatory class will be required for such REO, short sale, and BPO transactions in the future. I also know many good LO and Brokers out there, but I also know a few LO’s and Brokers who should be nailed to the wall. We have tighten the nuts and bolts here and start self regulating, turn in those LO’s and Brokers, Escrow Officers etc., who are unethical. I used to turn a cheek, but no more.

By: Angela

Angela — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:22:07 +0000

I think Mortgage Brokers and Loan Officers should be exempt. I have been introduced to several people through friends that were or are in risk of loosing their homes. Although I am unable to help all of them I do try to help when I can.

By: Jim Haechler

Jim Haechler — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:13:45 +0000

I think for now Mortgage Brokers and Loan Originators should be exempt. The law, poorly written is a start. We need to continue to improve checks and balances to protect distressed home owners. Just because there’re a few bad Brokers and Loan originators, we should’nt all be punished. There’re many good LO’s and Brokers that can be a valuable service to distressed home owners.

By: Marty Boswell

Marty Boswell — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:11:34 +0000

This is a complicated issue and I feel LO’s should be exempt. I’m here to help a distressed homeowner in a ethical way. It’s disturbing to read situations where homeowners are so desperate they have even quit claimed properties or were lead to a rent back situation, Ask for legal counsil or a 2nd opinion.

By: Angela

Angela — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:32:01 +0000

I do believe that Loan Officers should be exempt. I have worked with a group of agents in the past that made a point to prey on distressed homeowners. Even though the law was poorly written it has put a stop to at least some of the unethical practices of many agents.