Tag Archives: single family home

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