Adverse Possession v Cancellation and Quiet Title

Adverse Possession vs Cancellation of Instrument and Quiet Title

In the final analysis, the only way to smoke out the banks on their fraudulent claims as “creditors” or “agents of creditors” is to create a situation where the creditor must be disclosed. In those cases where judges have ruled in discovery or ruled on the right to prepay, subject to identification of the creditor, the cases have all settled under seal of confidentiality. There are thousands of such cases buried under side agreements requiring “Confidentiality.”

I have been seeing a number of people adding Adverse Possession to their theories about Quieting title. So let me say first that an order granting quiet title to a homeowner whose title is encumbered by a recorded mortgage or deed of trust is practically impossible not only because judges don’t want to grant it, but for the more important reason that quiet title is not legally sound strategy for homeowners seeking defend their homes from foreclosure.

In order to quiet title, one would need to allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mortgage or deed of trust should never have been executed or recorded in the first place. Anything less than that does not deserve quiet title declaration from any court. The fact that a certain party purports to have authority to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust when in fact they don’t have such authority is damn good reason not to let them enforce the mortgage or deed of trust. But that does not mean that the instrument is void.

Here is the response I gave to a question about adverse possession:

Adverse possession does not seem to apply to this situation. But it is possible that you could get traction by filing a lawsuit to cancel the DOT (Cancellation of Instrument) and maybe even get a order quieting title to your name. This is not simple and the requirements and elements of such claims are difficult to fulfill.

Adverse possession is usually utilized in boundary disputes.

A mortgage or a deed of trust is an interest in real property. And where we are dealing with the deed of trust,The trustee is receiving title to the property. So technically you are probably correct. But when you look deeper, You will see that adverse possession does not apply.

The transfer of title to a trustee under the deed of trust divests the homeowner of title. Under the terms of the DOT you are entitled to live there and act, for all purposes, as though you are the title owner including in a foreclosure proceeding. Hence several elements of adverse possession are not met especially “adverse,” since you have express permission under a contract to be there and to act as the title owner.

ELEMENTS OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: (NOTE — the “title owner is the DOT trustee)

  • Continuous
  • Open
  • Notorious
  • Peaceful, Peaceable
  • Hostile (claiming title against the interest of the party who actually has title)
  • Adverse (no permission or contractual right to assert title against the party who is seized with title).
  • Exclusive (barring claims or use by the actual title owner
  • Visible (putting a fence on your neighbor’s yard, ignoring the property line)
  • Actual (not implied)

But the fact that the DOT conveyed title to a real trustee on behalf of a false beneficiary is probably the basis for a lawsuit to cancel the instrument (if you can prove your allegations) and then get an order declaring the title is quieted, free from the encumbrance of record that is declared by the judge to be void.

You need to be careful though about your conclusion that the DOT was void. This involves several factual questions that are not obvious. Even a void instrument could conceivably be valid if it contains a defect that is corrected or could be corrected by affidavit pursuant to local law.

Your argument would be that no such affidavit was ever offered. Thus even after you filed your lawsuit, they failed or refused to make any corrections.

Their argument will circle around third party beneficiary, “standing,” and the fact that SOME party could enforce it if they could show that they were the intended beneficiary despite the recitation on the face of the DOT.

This is not the basis for a simple legal argument. Each side must allege and prove their factual (what happened, when, where, who was involved and why) allegations by at least a preponderance of the evidence and most probably, legal or not, the homeowner would be held to a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence informally or formally because the recorded documents carry a “presumption” of authenticity and validity that the homeowner must overcome.

Academically speaking such claims are well-founded. But in practice judges look at such claims as gimmicks to get around a legitimate debt. In order to combat that we must figure out a way to bring in a party who has a legitimate claim to represent the unknown and undisclosed creditors.

The banks have successfully cast the money trail in obscurity. The banks are committing fraud with each foreclosure in my opinion and in the opinion of everyone else I know that has analyzed the securitization of mortgage debt. But they have made it appear that there is nobody other than the bank’s pet entities (the so-called trusts) to play the role of creditor.

N. Garfield

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Certified Forensic Loan Securitization Analyst

I am happy to announce my certification as a Mortgage Securitization Auditor.  I have been helping people with this type of information for a few years now by passing them on to Bloomberg forensic mortgage securitization auditors I know.  I decided to educate myself to this procedure and am very grateful that I put myself through that learning curve.  Being a Mortgage Securitization Auditor allows me to complete a Bloomberg Forensic Loan Securitization audit for lawyers or their clients, property owners, and those who might be in litigation against the illegal foreclosure of their property and are trying to prove lack of standing, the void or voidable condition of their note, filing for quiet title, and much more.

Our report will include the following:

  • Loan Recording at county, governmental housing reporting agencies and financial reporting services
  • Deed Recording and Transfers
  • Verification that Assignees on Promissory Note is True and Correct
  • Information Identifying “True” beneficial Interest as per Promissory Note
  • Disclosures and Sufficiency of Information as per UCC
  • Securitized Trust Verification
  • Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the Trust that holds your Note
  • CUSIP – Identifying the Trust Account
  • Trust Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Identification of the Servicers; Originators; Trustees and Underwriters
  • Details of Bond Performance – Transactional up-to-date information
  • Periodic Reporting of Loan Performance in Securitized Trust
  • Client Specific Information – (special requests)

We use a private Bloomberg terminal for the latest search for Non-Agency residential loans by characteristic. Either Loan Number or Original Amount that are provided to perform a search to verify that the loan is inside the Securitized Trust.

Have a look at our sample Bloomberg securitization audit and see the depth of research our audits have compared to other firms. – Sample – Level-III-Securitization-Analysis

With our audits you get much more than just a Bloomberg Securitization Audit.  We work with a staff of expert lawyers who also help us draft you a legal complaint that can be used in any court in the country, to include state and federal jurisdictions. –  Sample –   Complaint-Petition

Bloomberg Securitization Audit

Our Bloomberg securitization audit is one many attorneys request. This type of audit is among the first important steps in determining the securitization of a loan and by whom.  A Bloomberg securitization audit can be a vital tool in an attorney’s or homeowner’s foreclosure defense and litigation brought against lenders. Call us today to talk about your needs.

For more information on Mortgage Securitization audits:

60 Minutes – Mortgage Securitization  Auditor – Forensic Loan Audit

 

 

Testimonials –  (from clients of my associates)

To begin, I bought your securitization audit after I had lost in state court in a foreclosure-10/27/14. Thinking there was no hope I found Certified Forensic and decided to try a securitization audit in order to have evidence of fraud in a filing with the Federal Court in New Jersey. I ended up in discovery in Federal Court. As you may remember part of discovery was a deposition taken by Chase of Michael Carrigan. I filed before Final Judgment in Federal Court on 04/10/15 with a securitization audit from Certified as evidence of fraud.To my surprise after a ruling for Chase in a summary judgement on 10/27/2014 -and going on four years later- on February 1, 2018 Chase unilaterally dismissed my state foreclosure case without any notice or discussions. I used most of the legal package from Certified. I did have people with some experience I could discuss the case with, and I had an expert witness which is also very helpful. William Paatalo is one of my expert witnesses. Bill knows the game well and he has testified around the country against the banks. It could only have happened because of the discovery in Federal Court which provided me with more evidence of fraud. This evidence could only have been gotten from discovery. And therefore the securitization audit was critical to my success in getting into discovery in Federal Court. Although I must caution there were others with the securitization audits that were not so successful so a securitization audit does not guarantee anything but in my opinion it puts you in the race. You need good legal advice and lots of reading and research with a lot of luck. I do think the odds are improving today as people are educating themselves. There are success stories. Its a long road home but the odds are getting better in my opinion. This may qualify me as a qualified success story for your firm since the state court dismissal could only have happened if I had not filed in Federal Court which brought me to discovery. Discovery gave me the evidence of fraud that I turned around and used in a Motion to Dismiss for Certification fraud in state court. The battle rages on. And there are more defeats than wins but there is hope. Many people have no idea that even after all these years there are options open to them. Chase tried to claim statue of limitation but there is no statue of limitation if you find fraud.”
James Farah

 

My wife and I would like to thank you for the wonderful work you’ve done submitting the loan modification to ocwen on our behalf, we have been wrestling with them for so long and we were getting nowhere and in fear of losing our home. After you suggested I called them to find out what the status of our loan modification was, they told us over the phone that we were eligible for a Sam [Shared Appreciation Modification) they reduced our principle from $736,579.75 to $513,950.00 our interest rate went from 4.25% to 2.00% our monthly mortgage payment went from $3467.83 interest only to $2354.82 principle interest taxes and insurance included, our interest only loan was changed to a 22‐year conventional fixed rate loan at 2.00%. This is good news, we could not be more grateful for the work you put into the modification. In addition; the difference between the original principle including penalties and interest and the new principal balance of $513,950 was $476,732.99 which they agreed to waive off 1/3 of that amount each year for three years as long as I remain current on my payments, at the end of that time the debt would not exist. They also told me that notification had gone out to their attorneys to stop the foreclosure proceedings, which was pending a sale date as you know. My wife and l are still in shock we wanted to see everything in writing and they told me over the phone tracking indicated that the package had been delivered to my address and it was already in the mailbox. I’m sending you copies of everything for you to look over. This was a great deal you got us, Steven, there’s more I can’t put in writing. Well done. This is a big step for us to be able to stay in our home.”
Anthony and Karen Boone

 

“Thank you for the support over the years. We just beat the bank in court to save house and prevent eviction. Their case was denied.”
Jeff Castillo

 

 

What Good Are the Reports and Analyses?

If you have a medical problem do you want just one doctor to look at your lab results or a team of doctors each doing their own analysis? The same question applies if you are heading into litigation. The problem for homeowners is that having a deep bench of professionals costs money. That is the way our system works, for better or worse.

Let us help your plan for trial and help you or your attorney draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

Today I was copied on an email sent by a client who was frustrated by having to pay his attorney to do his own analysis of the status of the loan and litigation in addition to reports by my staff and myself. The client regarded the work done by the lawyer as the same as reports done by forensic analysts, and the same as the work that I do at my firm.

Here is my answer:

The lawyer is doing something else entirely — making strategic and tactical decisions that will result in a homeowner winning the case — not just being “right.” The lawyer not only uses his unique knowledge of local laws, rules and procedures, he/she will only pursue those issues, claims and defenses that have the highest likelihood for traction and the lawyer makes the difficult decision of selecting 2-3 issues out of dozens because he knows the local bar and can make the best judgment on which tip to put at the end of the spear.

The “bench” for the financial industry is very deep involving as many as 20 people, most of whom are not seen by you because they want it to appear as a “standard foreclosure.” You need to understand that because of finances you are limiting your bench to one person (a lawyer or consultant) when what you need is a full bench.

For your lawyer to use any specific strategy or tactic he/she needs to believe in it. If not, it will not play well in the courtroom even on motions. If the lawyer wants to do further analysis to bring himself/herself up to that level of confidence then that is what it costs. If the lawyer is satisfied to direct the work of Bill Paatalo or myself to provide “second sight”, then that is what should happen.

The Justice system is based upon rationing out decision making where there is a dispute. It boils down to a vetting process based upon available resources. In other words it is about money. Lawyers, forensic analysts, and consultants, have spent years, even decades accumulating knowledge, skill and intuition. They have a right to get paid for that when it is applied to your benefit.

In an event like the past and current tidal wave of foreclosures based upon questionable and fraudulent business practices sometimes law enforcement gets involved; but the real benefit of winning and stopping the foreclosure can only be achieved through direct action by the homeowner and not some agency. That takes money from people who were wiped out by Wall Street banks who are propped up by an executive branch and legislative branch that not only doesn’t help homeowners but actually pass and enforce laws directly opposite to the legitimate interests of homeowners.

The system, particularly nonjudicial foreclosure, is rigged to favor devious parties who use fraud as their business plan. They have very deep pockets. For a homeowner who wants to win a case, the homeowner must be willing to commit resources required by the effort. Each professional has their own contribution to make, if you let them. Even if they are performing what appears to be identical work you will get a better decision based upon better interpretation.     ~    A.P. Lehman, JD

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Amended August 17, 2018 – AB 354 Institutional investors (see the fine print)

Amended August 17,2018 – AB-354 Institutional investors: housing.(2017-2018)

(SEE THE FINE PRINT IN BLUE BELOW)

Date Published: 08/17/2018 12:10 PM

 

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  AUGUST 17, 2018

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  JUNE 26, 2018

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  JULY 03, 2017

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  MAY 01, 2017

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  APRIL 18, 2017

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  MARCH 28, 2017

 

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL

No. 354


 

Introduced by Assembly Member Calderon


February 08, 2017

 


An act to add Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) to the Financial Code, relating to housing investors.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 354, as amended, Calderon. Institutional investors: housing.

Existing law establishes the Department of Business Oversight within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.

Existing law, the Economic Revitalization Act, establishes the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as GO-Biz, under the control of a director. Existing law requires GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and authorizes it to undertake specified activities, including marketing business and investment opportunities in California by working in partnership with local, regional, federal, and other state public and private institutions.

This bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to register by July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, with the Department of Business Oversight by providing a statement containing certain information, including, among other things, the total number of single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, including the number owned in each county, and the number occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county. The bill would authorize the department to charge a reasonable fee to process the registration. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected from institutional investors during the prior calendar year pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) is added to the Financial Code, to read:

DIVISION 21. Institutional Investors

60000.

(a) An institutional investor shall register by July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, with the department by providing the Department of Business Oversight with a written statement of all of the following for the prior calendar year: 

(1) The total number of single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, including the number that are owned in each county, and the number that are occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county.

(2) The total number of single-family homes in the state annually purchased by the institutional investor.

(3) The total number of offers to purchase single-family homes in the state made by the institutional investor.

(4) The total dollar value of single-family homes owned by the institutional investor in the state and the total dollar value of single-family homes owned by the institutional investor that are occupied by renters.

(5) The total number of single-family homes that are sold to existing tenants.

(b) The department may charge a reasonable fee to administer the registration required pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) For purposes of this section, “institutional investor” means a publicly traded company or corporation that owns more than 100 single-family homes in the state during a calendar year that are occupied by renters and that have a total value of more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000). An institutional investor may use an automated valuation model to estimate the value of homes it owns for purposes of determining whether the ten-million-dollar ($10,000,000) threshold required by this subdivision is met.An institutional investor does not include a lienholder that acquires ownership of a single-family home through a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure.

(d) For purposes of this section, “single-family home” means a home that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision. 

(e) (1) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the department shall submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected pursuant to subdivision (a) during the prior calendar year.

(2) A report required to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

**********************************

NOTE FROM MyCourtHistory:

The problem we have here is something that was part and parcel of my litigation against Wells Fargo.  In an illegal Unlawful Detainer ( which all of them are in the state of CA), a large part of the fraud against the court is the institutional investor groups that are in collusion with the illegal trustees, that pay off the corrupt judges.

Part of litigation strategy I used in my case was to file a Lis Pendens against the property upon receipt of the Unlawful Detainer claim against me, the property owner.   What this action does is place into the public record of a legal action, or an encumbrance, against the property.  This creates the line of litigation directly on to the person who then purchases the property in a Trustee Sale.  The new owner will become part and parcel of the open litigation.  They are unable to use the property, to take over the property, to claim right to the property until the open litigation is complete.  The new owner purchases any and all encumbrances against the property.

This tactic is used to keep most people from buying properties that are in litigation.  Therefore, it is a tactic used to stave off a Trustee Sale.  Any and all parties that are part and parcel of the Trustee Sale become part and parcel to the litigation by the property owner adding that party to the lawsuit as a DOES.  This is not what most homeowners wish to participate in, and it is not a very sound business strategy for institutional investors to buy properties in litigation.

Usually, the argument by the buyer would be that they were unaware of the litigation.  They will lay claim to the fact that they are Bone Fide purchasers.  This term is used do to the leniency the court offers non-institutional home purchasers.  Therefore, I found this new amended version of this bill quite troubling.  The legislation has just eliminated the institutional buyer from the overall protections allotted using the filing of a lis pendens.

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Our servers are now secured(https) for a more private browsing experience

We have upgraded our website servers and we are now operating on secured server protocols in order to allow our readers a more private browsing experience through the blog.  You can notice this on a website you frequent where in the address bar it will display whether or not the website is operating in a secure or not-secure protocol.

The principal motivation for HTTPS is authentication of the accessed website and protection of the privacy and integrity of the exchanged data while in transit. It protects against man-in-the-middle attacks. The bidirectional encryption of communications between a client and server protects against eavesdropping and tampering of the communication.[4] In practice, this provides a reasonable assurance that one is communicating without interference by attackers with the website that one intended to communicate with, as opposed to an impostor.

Historically, HTTPS connections were primarily used for payment transactions on the Web, e-mail and for sensitive transactions in corporate information systems.  Since 2018, HTTPS is used more often by webusers than the original non-secure HTTP, primarily to protect page authenticity on all types of websites; secure accounts; and keep user communications, identity, and web browsing private.

To learn more about HTTPS you can CLICK HERE!

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

A Trustee is widely known to be bogus

A response from one of my subscribing readers:  My comments are in italics

A trustee for a deed of trust is widely known to be bo gus. Courts have commented that a “trustee’ of a deed of trust is not a trustee at all, in a technical or strict sense”.

Also, there are some who state that a substitution of trustee is not a contract per se and not subject to the statute of frauds.  I hold a different opinion on this issue, as a trustee in a deed of trust contract is an integral part of the contract.  Therefore, a substitution of the integral part of the deed of trust contract makes it part of the overall contract itself.  It would be as if it were an addendum to the original contract.

A deed of trust, or an assignment is a contract subject to the Statute of Frauds and in some cases this has been useful in foreclosure defense. With an assignment it may be helpful to see if the document makes reference to the principal, that is the entity making the assignment also called the assignor. Under California law an agent may execute an assignment but it is not enforceable unless the document names the assignor. Oftentimes in MERS assignments they don’t bother.  In basic contract law, it is quite clear that any and all changes to any part or parcel of the contract must be fully understood, approved and signed off by all parties that are part and parcel to the contract throughout the duration of the contract.  Despite this discrepancy to basic contract law and the statute of frauds (1677). this challenge was effective in Suarez v. Bank of New York Mellon, Cal. Sup. 12-560082 (2013).

Corbin and Williston, the dead rock stars of contract law state, “Noncompliance with Statutory requirements results in the unenforceability of the contract due to Statute of Frauds”.

Even so challenging an assignment is an uphill battle in California thanks to the precedent set in Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 245 Cal. App. 4th 808, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 (Ct. App. 2016), an awful ruling that directly contradicted the Supreme Court decision in Yvanova.

 
 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

AB 354 was heard on June 20th and it will be a game changer.

AB 354 will be heard on June 20th in the SENATE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE

Majority Leader Ian Calderon is proposing AB 354, which would require Institutional Landlords to report the individual addresses of the homes they own to the State each year, including income and rent increases.

PLEASE CALL and MESSAGE THE COMMITTEE Members and urge them to Vote YES and move this bill forward! The Tenants of Corporate Landlords DESERVE transparency and a fighting chance against Billionaire Wall Street Landlords. It is only requiring REPORTING – no harm to the Billionaires. But, the information is critical to tenants and potential tenants as a Consumer Protection measure, for research, and tracking the impact on Californians.

https://www.facebook.com/AssemblymemberIanCalderon

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB354

SENATE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERShttp://sbnk.senate.ca.gov/ Phone Notes: how will they vote on AB354?ASK THEM – AB354
Senator Steven Bradford – CHAIR District 35: Los Angeles County communities of Carson, Compton, West Compton, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, West Carson, Watts, Willowbrook, and Wilmington (916) 651-4035 https://www.facebook.com/stevenbradford62/
Senator Andy Vidak – Vice Chair District 14: Fresno, Kern, Kings and Tulare counties (916) 651-4014 https://www.facebook.com/senatorandyvidak/
Senator Ted Gaines – District 1: Alpine, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou and Sierra counties. It is a diverse district that also includes many of the Sacramento suburbs. Major cities within the district include: Yreka, Redding, Auburn, South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Grass Valley, Folsom, Placerville, El Dorado Hills, Susanville, Quincy and Alturas (916)651-4001 https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedGaines/
Senator Cathleen Galgiani – District 5: San Joaquin County and portions of Stanislaus and Sacramento Counties (916) 651-4005 https://www.facebook.com/SenatorCathleenGalgiani/
Senator Ben Hueso – District 40: San Diego and all of Imperial County. (916) 651-4040
Senator Ricardo Lara – District 33: Los Angeles County cities and communities of Cudahy, Bell, Bell Gardens, Lynwood, Maywood, Signal Hill, Paramount, South Gate, Vernon, Walnut Park, Huntington Park, and most of Long Beach with portions of the cities of Lakewood & L.A. (916) 651-4033 https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRicardoLara/
Senator Anthony J. Portantino – District 25: Sunland-Tujunga, Glendale, Pasadena, Altadena, Atwater Village, La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, South Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Duarte, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Claremont, San Antonio Heights, and Upland plus most of Burbank. The district includes the Bob Hope Airport and the communities of interest surrounding and using Griffith Park. (916) 651-4025 https://www.facebook.com/portantino/

 

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

 

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 354

Introduced by Assembly Member Calderon
February 08, 2017
An act to add Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) to the Financial Code, relating to housing investors.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 354, as amended, Calderon. Institutional investors: housing.  Existing law establishes the Department of Business Oversight within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.  Existing law, the Economic Revitalization Act, establishes the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as GO-Biz, under the control of a director. Existing law requires GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and authorizes it to undertake specified activities, including marketing business and investment opportunities in California by working in partnership with local, regional, federal, and other state public and private institutions.
This bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to register by July 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, with the Department of Business Oversight by providing a statement containing certain information, including, among other things, the total number of residential properties single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, the total number of those residential properties occupied by renters, and the total number of residential properties owned by the institutional investor in each county. including the number owned in each county, and the number occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county. The bill would authorize the department to charge a reasonable fee to process the registration. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature by December 1, 2018, July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected from institutional investors during the prior calendar year pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  


BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) is added to the Financial Code, to read:

DIVISION 21. Institutional Investors

60000.

(a) An institutional investor shall register by July 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, with the department by providing the Department of Business Oversight with a written statement of all of the following:

(1) The total number of residential properties single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, including the total number of residential properties occupied by renters, and the total number of residential properties owned by the institutional investor in each county. number that are owned in each county, and the number that are occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county.
(2) The total number of residential properties single-family homes annually purchased by the institutional investor.
(3) The total number of offers to purchase residential property single-family homes in the state made by the institutional investor.
(4) The total dollar value of residential properties single-family homes owned by the institutional investor in the state and the total dollar value of residential properties single-family homes owned by the institutional investor that are occupied by renters.
(5) The total number of residential properties single-family homes that are sold to existing tenants.
(b) The department may charge a reasonable fee to administer the registration required pursuant to subdivision (a).
(c) (1)For purposes of this section, an “institutional investor” means a publicly traded company or corporation that satisfies both of the following:
(A)Is devoted to holding and managing more than 100 single-family residential properties with owns homes in the state during a calendar year that are occupied by renters and that have a total value of more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in the state occupied by renters, either on behalf of clients or for itself. ($10,000,000).

(B)Owns more than 100 single-family homes in the state during a calendar year.

(2)“Institutional investor” does not include a public entity, including, but not limited to, the state or a city, county, or city and county.

(d) For purposes of this section, “single-family home” means a home that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision.

(c)

(e) (1) The Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the department shall submit a report to the Legislature by December 1, 2018, July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected pursuant to subdivision (a). (a) during the prior calendar year.
(2) A report required to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

America’s Housing Crisis Is Spreading To Smaller Cities

America’s Housing Crisis Is Spreading To Smaller Cities

 

BOISE, ID – NOVEMBER 14, 2017: The downtown Boise skyline. (Photo by Joe Jaszewski for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

America’s Housing Crisis Is Spreading To Smaller Cities.  The next front in the battle over affordable housing isn’t Boston or San Francisco. It’s Boise.

“Have you considered the racket and the lights and the crowds and the traffic, and everything that’s going to happen to those of us who live here?”

It is a familiar sight in America: the public meeting, the angry residents, the housing developer trying to explain himself over the boos.

“Take the money you’ve got and get out of here,” one person shouts. A chant begins: “Oppose! Oppose! Oppose!”

Except this is not San Francisco or L.A. or Boston. It is Boise, Idaho.

And it is a preview of the next chapter in the housing crisis. Rising rents, displacement and, yes, NIMBYism are spreading from America’s biggest cities to those in its middle tier. Last year, according to an Apartment List survey, the fastest-rising rents in the country were in Orlando, Florida; Reno, Nevada; and Sacramento, California. Another survey, by RentCafe, found exactly one city with a population greater than 500,000 ― Las Vegas ― in the top 25.

Small cities are starting to face the same challenges as larger ones. Renting a two-bedroom apartment in Jacksonville, Florida, requires earning at least $18.63 per hour ― $10.53 more than the state minimum wage. In Tacoma, Washington (pop. 211,000), a property management company is evicting low-income residents so it can flip their building into luxury units. Boise, where downtown condos are going for $400,000, was the seventh most unequal city in America in 2016, a jump from 79th place just five years earlier.

And it’s only going to get worse. As the poor get pushed inward from the coasts and as young workers seek out the few affordable places left, they will arrive in America’s smaller cities ― which may not be ready to take them.

Rising rents in small and midsize cities are a humanitarian crisis

Boise is, by some measures, the fastest-growing city in America. It added 3 percent to its population last year and is projected to add another 200,000 people, around a third of its current population, by 2025.

This should be good news. The city’s growth is driven by a booming, diversified economy and an influx of skilled, educated young people. But Boise isn’t adding homes fast enough to keep up. According to an analysis from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there’s a demand for more than 10 times as many homes as the city is building. Without anything new available, incoming residents are scooping up what’s already there, bidding up costs and pricing out current residents.

The impact is devastating. Nearly half of Boise’s renters are living in apartments that eat up over 30 percent of their income. Since 2005, as living costs have exploded, Boise’s median income has fallen and the number of homeless children has more than doubled. Last month, a 5-year-old died when the car her family was sleeping in caught fire in a Walmart parking lot.

And yet, even as the city’s needs have grown, its ability to meet them has diminished.

According to Deanna Watson, the executive director of the Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority, Boise provides rental vouchers to around 2,500 low-income residents. If they can only afford, say, $300 per month, and their rent is $800, the vouchers make up the difference.

With rents booming, though, the assistance isn’t keeping up. HUD recalculates the value of the vouchers every year. But some Boise landlords are raising rents every 60 days.

“I’ve been doing this for 21 years and I’ve never seen anything like it,” Watson says. One voucher recipient lives in an old hotel converted into apartments. He uses a motorized wheelchair and needs live-in care. His rent has gone up $275 in the last 18 months, and he’s falling behind. “We’ve got people spending 80 to 90 percent of their income on rent, even with a rental assistance voucher,” Watson says. “And if they get evicted, or leave on their own, there’s no place for them to move.”

The perverse incentives don’t end there. Boise’s federal voucher allotment is determined each year by the previous year’s spending. With the apartment vacancy rate at 1 percent, and landlords refusing to rent to Boiseans who receive housing assistance (which is legal under Idaho law), it can take months for low-income residents to find anywhere that will take them.

To federal administrators, though, every unused rental voucher looks like unspent funding. Watson says it’s nearly impossible for the local housing authority to predict how many of the vouchers will actually get used. If the agency underspends, HUD will cut its budget. If it overspends, the city will have to make up the difference. Boise’s 2015 Housing Needs Assessment notes that since 2010, as the need for subsidized housing has increased, the use of rental vouchers has fallen. “When the need goes up,” Watson says, “the funding goes down.”

The same vulnerabilities are showing up in small cities across the country. In Orlando, where rents rose by almost 8 percent last year, the median rent already takes up 71 percent of the median income. According to Apartment List, Memphis, Tennessee, had the highest per capita eviction rate in the country between 2015 and 2017. Montana has seen a 33 percent rise in homelessness in the last decade. Smaller cities have lower rents, but they also have lower wages, less diverse economies and fewer social services. Everything that makes it easier to get onto the housing ladder in places like Boise also makes it easier to fall off.

American cities are still catching up from the recession

It’s tempting to look at the housing crisis in Boise as just a miniature version of what’s already happened in the Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest and the Northeastern corridor. But in the last 10 years, the American economy has transformed in ways that are going to make it even harder for smaller cities to respond to growth.

In 2007, the city of Boise was issuing more than twice as many building permits as it is now. Despite having 125,000 more residents, Boise’s metro area built fewer homes in 2016 than it did in 2004.

The reason, says Gary Hanes, a retired HUD administrator based in Boise, is that the recession wiped out the city’s construction sector. Between 2008 and 2012, Boise home prices fell by 40 percent. With homebuilding stalled, thousands of construction workers took other jobs or left for North Dakota or Alaska. By 2012, once all the low-cost and foreclosed homes had been scooped up and the city needed new housing again, there was no one left to build it.

This isn’t just a Boise problem. Construction workers, even in high-paid jobs and booming cities, are in short supply. Plus, thanks to increasing international demand, prices for timber, steel and concrete are going up nationwide. Banks have gotten more risk-averse since the recession, preferring to finance “sure bets” ― such as McMansions in the suburbs ― over “riskier” projects like urban apartment blocks or affordable housing.

The higher costs of materials, financing and labor, combined with the years-long lag in homebuilding, have made construction unbearably expensive. Fred Cornforth, the CEO of the CDI/Idaho Development and Housing Organization, builds affordable housing in 17 states. He tells me that his last project in Boise cost around $155,000 per apartment ― cheaper than Seattle, where he also develops properties, but not by as much as you’d think.

This, Cornforth says, is the fundamental challenge of the housing crisis in Boise and everywhere else: The only way make prices fall is to overbuild. You need vacancy rates of 8 percent or more before rents start to come down. But the backlog is so great, and the costs of building are so high, that it’s impossible even to meet the current demand. Every year, he says, as the backlog grows, the costs go up and the challenge of meeting the need gets worse.

Red states make solving the housing crisis harder

Then there are all the challenges of being located in a red state. Not that California and Massachusetts are exactly exemplars of equitable growth, but nearly all of Boise’s problems are exacerbated by neglect or outright sabotage from state lawmakers.

The city is barred, for example, from forcing developers to reserve a percentage of their units for affordable housing. The state’s Housing Trust Fund, which was created in 1992 and could help alleviate some of the pressure on the vouchers, has never seen a dime of state funding. Plus, Idaho law prevents Boise from taxing itself to provide better city services. Even carpool lanes are forbidden by state law.

“We’ve got a campaign for governor going on right now and there hasn’t been a minute of airtime about how to grow,” says Jerry Brady, a former politician and the founder of Compassionate Boise, a nongovernmental organization that advocates for equitable growth. “It’s all freedom, abortion and who can cut spending the most. There’s never a moment’s conversation about traffic or how to prevent us from becoming the next California.”

This makes no financial sense, of course. The Boise area generates 47 percent of Idaho’s gross domestic product. State funding to build more homes, expand public transit or prepare the city’s water and sewer systems for more residents would, in the long run, save money and attract more growth.

And yet, here we are. Many of the cities now experiencing galloping rises in living costs are in rural, Republican-dominated states ― places where increasing funding to low-income renters and investing in public housing are politically impossible. At the federal level, too, help is decidedly not on the way. Last year’s Republican tax plan removed a subsidy for affordable housing developers. Just last week, HUD Secretary Ben Carson announced that his department was shrinking federal housing subsidies.

That has implications far beyond Boise. In a survey of 156 mayors earlier this year, 72 percent reported that affordable housing was becoming a problem. Even in small towns, housing costs were the No. 2 concern that mayors reported hearing from their constituents. It’s a nationwide problem ― 87 percent of the country’s 250 biggest cities reported rent rises last year ― but one that cities are still expected to solve by themselves.

Neighbors are fighting growth

Ultimately, the housing crisis is not about housing. It is about the inability of American cities to grow.

“It’s hard to acknowledge change,” says Mike Kazmierski, the president of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada. He’s been watching Reno, another medium-size boomtown, play out the same debates as Boise for over six years now. “If you say your city is going to grow, that means you need another fire station, more schools, more staff. Cities don’t have the budgets for that, and asking for it means raising taxes. The pushback is, ‘We don’t want to pay for that growth. Let them pay for it when they get here.’”

This is where Boise starts to look depressingly familiar. In the last few years, as the city’s growth has become more visible, NIMBY groups have taken over the political conversation. Of the 21 speakers at a town hall meeting last month, only two said they welcomed more growth. Signs reading “OVERCROWDING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE” are showing up in front yards. Some local residents, taking a page from the San Francisco playbook, are trying to get their neighborhood classified as a “conservation district” to block new buildings from going in.

Some of the complaints have merit ― it’s hard not to be sympathetic to residents asking for sidewalks on their streets or more frequent bus service ― but many are simply pleas for the growth itself to stop. A comment on the Facebook page for Vanishing Boise, one of the local anti-development groups, is emblematic of the argument: “Why are they coming in the first place?????”

As in other cities, this dynamic reveals a fundamental weakness in the American political system: Opposition to growth comes from homeowners and voters, entrenched interests who already have the ear of local politicians. Supporters of growth, the beneficiaries of all the new development, haven’t even moved here yet.

This means, says Zoe Olsen, the executive director of the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, that local opposition is often focused on preventing growth rather than managing it. “Everyone wants to preserve the farmland around us,” she says. “But these neighborhood groups are fighting for things like, ‘Let’s have one home per acre.’ The only way we’re going to preserve our parks and our beautiful pastoral feeling is by building upwards.”

But there is no political constituency for this argument. Boise’s homeownership rate is 68 percent ― 25 points higher than San Francisco’s. Despite a Boise State University study showing that the city will lose twice as much of its farmland if it continues to expand through sprawl rather than density, most local advocacy groups are making the same argument San Francisco homeowners have made for decades: If we don’t build it, they won’t come.

It’s the same in other midsize, housing-crunched cities: Thanks to the highways and homeowners already there, it’s almost impossible to form the critical mass to make hard decisions about how to grow. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, spent years debating whether to build a single low-income housing complex. Franklin, Tennessee, changed its zoning to allow less density after a developer put 20 houses on a 24-acre plot. In Boise, residents resisted a city plan to base the F-35 fighter jet nearby ― along with the high-paying, secure military jobs that accompany it ― because they didn’t want the noise.

But there are shoots of hope, too. Hanes, the retired HUD administrator, points out that Boise is building dedicated housing for its chronically homeless population. Of the 1,000 housing units under construction downtown, more than 250 are reserved for low-income residents. Hanes started a group, Love Your Neighbor, that shows up at City Council meetings and argues for more growth.

And Hanes, who lived in San Francisco during its early boom years, sees one significant difference between the new housing crisis in smaller cities and the decades-old one in bigger metropolises.

“Here,” he says, “we can still solve it.”

 

Originally published on HUFFPOST
Written by Michael Hobbes
Senior Enterprise Reporter, HuffPost

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved