Got a Dog of a Business Picture?
My good friend and photographer, Tammy Wolfe, will be taking pictures right here in my office on July 31 and August first. My daughter, Marissa, is just completing an internship with Tammy up in Pennsylvania. Tammy and her business partner, Tamar London, have some slots available for professional head shots. So if your pics are a bit out-of-date, give them a call. They also specialize in digital photo editing, so they’ll make you look your best (and then some)! There are also slots available for senior pictures and family pictures in Azalea Park. THERE IS NO SITTING FEE! If you don’t like the pictures, you owe nothing. Their website is: www.londonwolfe.com. See below for more information.
–Russ DeMott
Can’t Get No Satisfaction (Part Two)
Photo by Michael Mulligan
In my last post, “Can’t Get No Satisfaction (Part One),” we examined the legal effect of an unsatisfied mortgage. This post will address one commonly used solution to an unsatisfied mortgage, as well as the penalties a lender faces under South Carolina law for failure to satisfy a mortgage once full payment has been made.
First, if there’s no satisfaction recorded, you should contact the prior closing attorney. If the attorney paid off the mortgage at closing, the attorney may issue an “Attorney Satisfaction.” See S.C. Code Ann. §29-30-330. When the Attorney Satisfaction is recorded, it has the same legal effect as if the lender recorded the satisfaction; that is, title is rendered marketable.
Second, South Carolina law has a stiff penalty for lenders who fail to issue a satisfaction once the mortgage note is paid in full and the borrower has made a valid request for the satisfaction. If the lender fails to satisfy the mortgage within three months of a valid request, the lender must pay the borrower either $25,000 or one-half of the mortgage note amount, whichever is less, along with any other damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. See S.C. Code Ann. §29-3-320.
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently outlined the process of triggering the lender’s liability in Dykeman v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (S.C. 2009) 2009 WL 294745. The Court held that for the penalty to apply, a borrower must show: “(1) that he has made full payment of his debts, including any applicable damages, costs, and charges, (2) that he has made a ‘request by certified mail or other form of delivery’ that the mortgage be satisfied of record, (3) that he has made a ‘tender of fees of office for entering satisfaction,’ and (4) that the mortgagee has failed to ‘enter satisfaction in the proper office on the mortgage’ within three months of the request.” The request for satisfaction has no standard format, and need only convey an “affirmative desire” on the part of the borrower to have the mortgage satisfied. The fee required to record a mortgage satisfaction in South Carolina is $5.
–Russ DeMott
Can’t Get No Satisfaction (Part One)
Photo by Marissa DeMott
You’re headed toward the finish line. The goal: closing. You’ve taken all the precautions, done all the leg work. Maybe it’s your first closing, so you’ve got your helmet on and your training wheels attached. You’re moving right along. Then it happens: there’s a missing mortgage satisfaction. A Big Fat Title Defect.
I confess that whenever I hear my staff say “we’re missing a satisfaction,” I just can’t help but think of Mick Jagger’s song “(Can’t Get No) Satisfaction.”
When I’m drivin’ in my car
and a man comes on the radio
he’s tellin’ me more and more
about some useless information
supposed to fire my imagination.
I can’t get no, oh no no no.
Hey hey hey, that’s what I say.
I can’t get no satisfaction,
I can’t get no satisfaction.
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can’t get no, I can’t get no.
I’m also reminded of my mother’s frequent rebuke to me for using double negatives. “Can’t get no” is a double negative that my mother-a school teacher-hated. Mom wouldn’t appreciate Mick Jagger’s poetic license with the English language.
Why is a missing mortgage satisfaction a problem? Because the mortgage is a lien on the property until it’s satisfied. It follows the property. This means that if Jones owes a mortgage on the property at the time he sells to Smith, Smith now owns property with that same mortgage on it. And if the mortgage is not paid, the lender can foreclose on Smith’s property, even though Smith is not personally liable for the underlying debt. Clearly, Smith did not acquire marketable title to the property. (See my prior post on Insurable and Marketable Title.) So if we find a mortgage on the seller’s property, we need to find a corresponding satisfaction to ensure that the buyer isn’t buying property with a huge title defect. Just like biscuits and gravy, mortgages and satisfactions go together.
Under South Carolina law, a mortgage continues to be a lien on real estate for 20 years beyond the maturity date stated in the mortgage. For example, if a 30-year mortgage were granted in 1963, it would mature in 1993, and would continue to be a lien on the property until 2013 (unless it were satisfied or otherwise canceled before then). If there is no maturity date stated, the mortgage only continues to be a lien for 20 years from the date the mortgage was granted.
In part two, we’ll examine some solutions resolving situations in which an unsatisfied mortgage remains a lien on the property.
–Russ DeMott
Closing Attorney Does Not Represent Lender
Photo by Michael Mulligan
Today, the South Carolina Ethics Committee issued Ethics Advisory Opinion 09-07. The Committee addressed the issue of whether, in a routine residential closing, the closing attorney has an attorney-client relationship with the lender. The Committee said the attorney does not act as an attorney for the lender unless the lender is relying on the closing attorney for more than simply closing the transaction. Specifically, the Committee stated:
A ’standard real estate closing’ means a residential real estate closing where Borrower has chosen and retained Lawyer and a sophisticated institutional Lender is providing financing evidenced by a loan package prepared in advance by the Lender and forwarded to the closing attorney for execution. While the Lawyer has an obligation to explain the documents proffered by Lender to the Borrower, Lender’s instructions that Lawyer ensure that its documents be properly executed does not, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship between Lender and Lawyer.
The Committee did note that the results would be different when the attorney has an ongoing business relationship with the lender. ”A business relationship,” the Committee stated, “does not exist when Lawyer is not employed or engaged by Lender, has not drafted Lender’s closing package, and has not provided a legal opinion to Lender on the quality or legitimacy of the documents contained in Lender’s closing package.”
Many attorneys have incorrectly concluded that a closing attorney acts as attorney for the lender, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of lenders only view the closing attorney as a title agent. Furthermore, the opinion comports with the South Carolina Consumer Protection Code, which requires lenders to allow borrowers to choose their own attorney for the closing. See S.C. Code Ann. 37-10-102(a). To suggest that the closing attorney represents a lender who is forbidden by statute from choosing the closing attorney is illogical. More importantly, if a closing attorney were deemed to be an attorney for the lender, the attorney would be unfairly exposed to liability even though the lender has sole control over drafting and selecting closing documents for the borrower to sign. Accordingly, the Committee’s common-sense approach to this issue is a welcome development.
–Russ DeMott
Thank You to My Friends
Photo by Marissa DeMott
Now that I’ve been blogging for about two months, I’d like to say thank you to some friends of mine who have helped me along the way.
First and foremost, I’d like to thank my good friend Dave Walker. Dave is both a true friend and a talented website designer and software programmer. Dave has helped me understand how to operate the blog, which is no small task since I had never done one before. He has taken a generic Word Press theme and added to it to make it look great. The house in the shopping cart at the top was Dave’s idea. Check out Dave’s website at http://www.interfacevisuals.com. He’s also almost finished designing a bankruptcy website for me, which will hopefully launch in about two weeks. Dave is a patient man who wants his clients to be happy. He’s been great to work with, and I can’t say enough good things about him. Thanks for all your hard work and advice Dave!
Second, I’d like to thank Michael Mulligan for the photos he’s given me for the blog. As many of you know, Mike is the technological force behind The Mulligan Team. His photos are exceptional, and they have helped give the blog strong visual appeal. Mike recently gave me some more photos, and I look forward to using them. He does a jaw dropping great job, and I’m amazed at his talent. Keep the photos coming, Mike!
I’m also getting photos from a friend of mine, Kim Held, who is an amateur photographer. She took that great shot of the Cooper River Bridge I used in the post on insurable and marketable title.
Likewise, my daughter Marissa took the photo you see above. Marissa sees things others don’t. As she said today, “looking and seeing are two different things.” Marissa is passionate about photography and will being doing an internship with a high school friend of mine, Tammy Fowler Wolfe. Tammy is a professional photographer in Pennsylvania. Check out Tammy’s amazing work at http://www.londonwolfe.com.
Last but not least, there are others who have helped me with ideas and editing. Thanks very much to all of you!
–Russ DeMott
But I Paid the Rent!: Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009
Photo by Michael Mulligan
There is good news for any tenant facing eviction after foreclosure. The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, which became law on May 20, guarantees almost all tenants at least 90 days after receiving notice of foreclosure before they can be evicted from their homes. This applies even to month-to-month leases. And even better news for some tenants is that they may be able to remain in their homes for the remainder of their lease terms, giving them an opportunity to make alternative housing arrangements. Of course, this does not bode well for lenders, who may find themselves reluctantly managing rental properties over the next three years.
So if you’re the tenant, how do you know how long you can stay in the house if the bank forecloses?
- If the new owner plans to use the property as a personal residence, you get at least 90 days to vacate. If you’re living in the property month-to-month, you also get 90 days to vacate.
- If your lease is up next month, guess what? You still get 90 days to vacate.
- If, however, the new owner isn’t going to use the property as a personal residence, you get to stay in the home until your lease expires.
One important point: leases have to be “bona fide” in order for the tenant to qualify for this protection. If you’re living in the house for a dollar a month because your cousin really likes you (or because he lost a bet), you’re probably not protected by this Act. To be considered a bona fide lease, three requirements must all be met: “(1) the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor under the contract is not the tenant; (2) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms-length transaction; and (3) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property or the unit’s rent is reduced or subsidized due to a Federal, State, or local subsidy.” Consequently, new owners may have a valid defense in some circumstances.
Check out the National Low Income Housing Renters in Foreclosure Toolkit at http://www.nlihc.org/template/page.cfm?id=227
–Russ DeMott
Insurable Title and Marketable Title
Photo by Kim Held
Every few months I get a call from a realtor or a client asking me to explain the difference between “marketable title” and “insurable title.” Usually, this comes up in connection with some particular title issue that has either been disclosed by the seller or that our office has found during our title search.
“Marketable title” is the gold standard in title quality. My colleague Claire Manning, dirt lawyer extraordinaire and author of the Handbook for South Carolina Dirt Lawyers, describes marketable title as title which would pass without objection by the most conservative lawyer. In my mind, being from Michigan, I think of marketable title as being pure as the driven snow. (If you’ve ever had to deal with snow in your life, you know what I mean. If not, well, you’re lucky.) In short, marketable title is close to perfect. One more thing: when we use the term “marketable” or “marketability” we are not referring to whether the property can be sold. There is no prohibition against selling property with title problems, and on rare occasions, a buyer decides to purchase property with very serious title defects. Marketable in this context solely relates to title quality.
“Insurable title,” on the other hand, is a description meaning that the title may have problems, but not such troublesome ones that they would prevent the issuance of a title policy on the property. In short, it’s not close to perfect, but it’s not riddled with horrible problems, either. The most conservative lawyer you know-and maybe some not-so-conservative lawyers too-would not view the title as marketable. However, insurable title, even if not marketable, is of good enough quality for a title insurance company to insure. The title insurance company will note the particular issue in the “exceptions section” of the policy but still give “affirmative coverage” over the title defect.
Some examples may be helpful. A tax sale in the chain of title, depending on how long ago the sale occurred, could render the title unmarketable, uninsurable, or both. For example, if the tax sale occurred within the last five years, the title will certainly be both unmarketable and also uninsurable. That’s because if the tax sale was not done properly-and many aren’t-the property owner who lost the property for unpaid taxes may be able to successfully set aside the sale. Bottom line: no title insurance company will insure over a recent tax sale and no competent lawyer would conclude the title was marketable or even insurable.
However, if we change the facts a bit, the results change. Let’s say the tax sale occurred 28 years ago. Our “most conservative lawyer” would still say that the title is not marketable. Despite being unmarketable, though, many title insurance companies would insure over the title defect.
Why? Title insurance, just like property and casualty insurance, is about managing risk. No insurance company wants to “buy a claim,” but insurance companies stay in business by collecting premiums. Therefore, if the risk is small enough, the title insurance company will, in essence, bet that there will be no claim made and insure over the defect. Insuring a title with a 28-year-old tax sale would almost certainly be a safe bet.
Let’s change the facts again. What if the tax sale occurred 48 years ago? Would the title still be unmarketable? No. South Carolina, like most states, has a 40-year marketable title act. This means that defects in title more than 40 years old are not defects which render the title unmarketable. So the title in this example would be marketable and, of course, insurable.
Other title defects that might render a title unmarketable include judgments, unsatisfied mortgages, and various liens. Depending on the facts, these title defects might also render the title uninsurable.
In other areas of the country, marketable title has been redefined as insurable title. In other words, if the title insurance company will insure it, it’s deemed marketable. In our example, a tax sale from 28 years ago could not be used by the buyer to terminate the contract due to title not being marketable. The contract redefines marketability.
In the Charleston, South Carolina area, however, marketability tends to be the standard. Our Charleston (CTAR) “form contract,” left unmodified, requires marketability in order for the contract to be binding on the purchaser. Still, understanding the difference between marketability and insurability is important, and giving the buyer the option of accepting insurable title may be a way to save a transaction.
–Russ DeMott
HUD Mortgagee Letter 2009-15 REINSTATED!!
Let the whiplash continue! You’ll recall that HUD Mortgagee Letter 2009-15 was issued earlier this month and then repealed. It’s now been reinstated. The policy allows the home buyer to use the $8,000 tax credit as collateral for a loan used for closing costs, pre-paids, and down payment. To secure repayment of the amount advanced, the buyer would grant a second mortgage to the lender in the amount of the credit advanced. Essentially, it lets the borrower tap into the $8,000 at closing, rather than wait for the credit when the borrower receives his tax refund. A link to HUD’s website and the letter is http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/mortgagee/files/09-15ml.doc
–Russ DeMott
June Charity Luncheon for Habitat For Humanity
We will be having our June charity luncheon on Wednesday, June 3 from noon until you all get enough to eat. Our sponsored charity will be Habitat for Humanity. Pete and I have worked with Habitat home buyers for several years. We’ve seen first hand what great work this charity does. Please bring a donation of whatever you can afford.
Pete will be serving his famous barbeque, and we’ll have plenty of other good food as well. We look forward to see you all on the 3rd!
–Russ DeMott
Today, SC Supreme Court Issues New Order Regarding Foreclosure Cases Subject to Modification
The Supreme Court of South Carolina
RE: Mortgage Foreclosures and the Home Affordable Modification Program (HMP)
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
On March 4, 2009, the United States Treasury Department (Treasury) issued Guidelines on mortgage loan modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HMP) for residential loans owned, securitized or guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).[1] The HMP is part of the Making Home Affordable Program (MHAP).
Subsequently on April 6, 2009, Treasury issued Supplemental Directive 09-01,[2] which provided additional guidance to servicers for adoption and implementation of the HMP for residential mortgage loans that are not owned, securitized or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. For this latter category, the HMP is only applicable if the servicer has agreed to participate in the HMP.[3]
If applicable, the HMP requires the temporary suspension of foreclosure actions.[4] The HMP is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, and has no application to a mortgage originated after January 1, 2009.
On May 4, 2009, I issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on a motion filed by Fannie Mae.[5] This TRO had to be issued on an ex parte basis, and it was anticipated that it would be replaced by a subsequent order.
To insure that eligible homeowners have been afforded the benefits available under the HMP, the procedures for handling issues relating to the HMP are handled uniformly throughout the State, and mortgage foreclosure actions are not unnecessarily dismissed or delayed while HMP issues are resolved, I direct the following:
(1) Actions Filed After May 4, 2009. In all mortgage foreclosure actions filed after May 4, 2009, the complaint (or amended complaint) seeking foreclosure shall contain “a short and plain statement of the facts”[6] regarding the applicability of the HMP to the matter. For mortgages involving commercial property, the complaint may simply allege that the property is commercial and that the HMP is inapplicable.[7]
For mortgages involving residential property, the complaint shall state if the mortgage loan is owned, securitized or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or if the servicer is participating in the HMP. If so as to either, the complaint shall state the facts showing that the loan is not subject to modification under the HMP,[8] or state the facts showing that the HMP modification process specified by the Guidelines or Supplemental Directive has been completed without resulting in a modification.[9] If these allegations are contested by the answer or the judge allows the issue to become contested at some later stage of the proceeding, any dispute regarding the eligibility of the mortgage loan for modification under the HMP or the satisfaction of the requirements of the HMP if it applies, shall be resolved like any other contested issue in a mortgage foreclosure case. Sections (3) and (4) of this order relate to the effect of the HMP determinations made by the judge.
(2) Actions Pending on May 4, 2009. In all mortgage foreclosure actions pending on May 4, 2009, the party seeking foreclosure should have served the affidavit required by the TRO by May 15, 2009. If the affidavit was timely served under the TRO, any counter affidavit asserting that the loan is subject to modification under the HMP or that the requirements of the HMP have not been meet, should be served by May 22, 2009.
If the party seeking a foreclosure did not serve the affidavit by May 15, 2009, as required by the TRO, the matter will be stayed until the party seeking foreclosure serves and files an affidavit regarding the applicability of the HMP to the matter. For mortgages involving commercial property, the affidavit may simply allege that the property is commercial and that the HMP is inapplicable.
For residential mortgages, the affidavit shall state if the mortgage loan is owned, securitized or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or if the servicer is participating in the HMP. If so as to either, the affidavit shall state the facts showing that the mortgage loan is not subject to modification under the HMP, or state the facts showing that the HMP modification process specified by the Guidelines or Supplemental Directive has been completed without resulting in a modification. In the alternative, the affidavit may concede that the matter should be stayed until the HMP modification process is completed. If the affidavit is not served within ninety (90) days of the date of this order, the foreclosure action may be dismissed. If the affidavit is served, any other party to the action shall have ten (10) days to serve a counter affidavit.
A copy of any affidavit or any counter affidavit (whether served before or after this order), along with proof of service, shall immediately be filed with the court where the action is pending.
The judge shall consider the affidavit and any counter affidavit that may be filed to determine if there is any contested issue that must be resolved regarding the eligibility of the loan for modification under the HMP or satisfaction of the requirements of the HMP if it applies. If so as to either, the judge shall resolve this issue like any other contested issue in a mortgage foreclosure action. If a counter affidavit is not timely served, the determination of whether there are HMP issues which need to be resolved before foreclosure is ordered or the sale is commenced shall be based on the affidavit alone unless the judge allows the late service and filing of the counter affidavit or allows the issue to become contested at some later stage of the proceeding. Sections (3) and (4) of this order relate to the effect of the HMP determinations made by the judge.
(3) Determination that the HMP is Applicable But the HMP Process Has Not Been Completed. If a judge determines that the HMP is applicable but that the process to determine if a modification will be made under the HMP has not been completed, the foreclosure action shall not be dismissed but shall be stayed until the HMP process is completed (including any trial period before a modification becomes effective). If the action is stayed, the party seeking foreclosure will advise the court of the status of the matter every thirty (30) days; the failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action. If the loan is modified under the HMP, the parties shall immediately notify the judge so that the mortgage foreclosure action can be dismissed. Nothing in this order shall be construed as preventing the party seeking foreclosure from voluntarily dismissing the foreclosure action.[10]
(4) Determination that Mortgage Loan is Not Subject to Modification under the HMP. If a judge determines that the HMP is either inapplicable to the mortgage loan or that the HMP requirements have been satisfied without resulting in a modification, the foreclosure action may continue. This includes the consummation of any sales conducted on or prior to May 4, 2009.
(5) TRO Rescinded. The TRO previously issued by me on May 4, 2009, is hereby rescinded. Instead, the provisions of this Administrative Order shall govern foreclosure actions potentially affected by the HMP.[11]
(6) Judicial Sales in Mortgage Foreclosure Cases. Nothing in this order shall be construed as preventing a judge from setting additional sales days under S.C. Code Ann. §15-39-680 (2005). Further, where an order of foreclosure was issued on or before May 4, 2009, nothing in this order shall be construed as preventing the judge from directing the advertising of the property for sale so long as any issue regarding the HMP is resolved before the sale occurs.
For the purpose of this order, the term “judge” shall include a circuit court judge, master-in-equity and special referee. If this order requires service of an affidavit or counter affidavit upon a party, service shall be accomplished as provided by Rule 5(b)(1), SCRCP, and service shall be made on all parties to the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
| s/Jean Hoefer Toal Jean H. Toal Chief Justice |
Columbia, South Carolina
May 22, 2009
[1] The guidelines are available at www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/modification_program_guidelines.pdf. In addition to contacting the servicer to determine if the loan is owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, homeowners can also use the links on the following website to determine if their loans are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac: http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/loan_lookup.html.
[2] Available at www.hmpadmin.com/docs/Supplemental_Directive_09-01.pdf.
[3] A list of those servicers who have agreed to participate may be found at http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/contact_servicer.html.
[4] The Guidelines state:
Any foreclosure action will be temporarily suspended during the trial period, or while borrowers are considered for alternative foreclosure prevention options. In the event that the Home Affordable Modification or alternative foreclosure prevention options fail, the foreclosure action may be resumed.
In relevant part, the Supplemental Directive states:
To ensure that a borrower currently at risk of foreclosure has the opportunity to apply for the HMP, servicers should not proceed with a foreclosure sale until the borrower has been evaluated for the program and, if eligible, an offer to participate in the HMP has been made. Servicers must use reasonable efforts to contact borrowers facing foreclosure to determine their eligibility for the HMP, including in-person contacts at the servicer’s discretion. Servicers must not conduct foreclosure sales on loans previously referred to foreclosure or refer new loans to foreclosure during the 30-day period that the borrower has to submit documents evidencing an intent to accept the Trial Period Plan offer. Except as noted herein, any foreclosure sale will be suspended for the duration of the Trial Period Plan, including any period of time between the borrower’s execution of the Trial Period Plan and the Trial Period Plan effective date.
[5] This order and the motion are available at www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/displaywhatsnew.cfm?indexID=526.
[6] Rule 8(a), SCRCP.
[7] For example, the complaint could simply state: “Since this foreclosure action involves a mortgage on a commercial office building, the Home Affordable Modification Program is inapplicable.”
[8] Despite the fact that the loan is owned, securitized or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or the servicer is participating in the HMP, there are numerous other requirements that may prevent the loan from being eligible for modification under HMP. For example, modification under HMP is not available if the property is not a single family 1 – 4 unit property, the property is not the primary residence of the homeowner, the mortgage originated after January 1, 2009, the unpaid principal balance exceeds certain specified amounts, the property is vacant or condemned, or the loan has been previously modified under the HMP. For specifics on these and other requirements, the Guidelines and Supplemental Directive should be consulted. For homeowners, there is an interactive website to assist them in determining if the mortgage loan is potentially subject to modification under the HMP: http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/modification_eligibility.html.
[9] If the HMP is applicable and the modification process has not been completed, the action should not be filed.
[10] I am concerned that there may be a significant number of actions that may be stayed while the HMP process is completed. I expect the party seeking foreclosure to complete the process and make a determination if the mortgage loan will be modified in a prompt and diligent manner. If this is not done and the number of cases stayed reaches an unacceptable level, this order may be modified to allow for the dismissal of actions which are stayed and not resolved in a reasonable period of time.
[11] In response to the TRO, six law firms (the Scott Law Firm, P.A.; Rogers, Townsend, Thomas, P.C.; the Finkel Law Firm, L.L.C.; Fleming & Whitt, P.A.; the Korn Law Firm, P.A.; and the Weston Adams Law Firm) have filed a motion seeking a state-wide scheduling order. The South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, South Carolina Legal Services, the law firm of Harrison & Radeker, P.A., and the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center have filed returns to the motion. In addition, the six law firms have filed a reply and an amended reply. These filings have been considered in issuing this order.
In its return, Consumer Affairs points out that, in addition to HMP, other parts of the MHAP may provide relief to homeowners. This includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allowing refinancing of mortgage loans that they own or that they placed in mortgage backed securities where homeowners are current on their loans, Short Sales/Deeds-in-Lieu Program and the Home Price Decline Protection Incentives. While these programs are beyond the scope of this order, the following links provide information about those programs: www.freddiemac.com/sell/factsheets/relief_refi.html; www.efanniemae.com/sf/mha/mharefi/pdf/refinancefaqs.pdf; http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/refinance_eligibility.html; www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/05142009FactSheet-MakingHomesAffordable.pdf.
