PropertyRadar Community

SB 1079 with Mike Belotte #DDRE15

California SB 1079 with Michael Belote DDRE#15

Join us Thursday, October 8 at 9 am PDT for the YouTube Premiere of this episode of the Data Driven Real Estate Podcast and chat along with the PropertyRadar team: https://bit.ly/ddre-premier

Get your questions answered on the upcoming show by posting your questions in our community: https://bit.ly/ddre-15

Mike Belote is president of California Advocates, Inc., one of Sacramento’s oldest contract lobbying firms. His 35-year lobbying career began with association lobbying jobs with CPAs, Realtors and title companies, and he has been a contract lobbyist since 1990. Specialties include issues relating to the judicial branch, real estate, and financial services, including judges, civil defense lawyers, employment law, and more. Mike has represented the United Trustees Association for nearly 30 years. He also represents a diverse range of other clients including new car dealers and Apple. A division of Belote’s firm also is one of Sacramento’s biggest association management providers. He is known for philanthropic work relating to domestic violence and veteran’s services, and he sponsors a lecture series every year discussing a key issue of California policy.

Main Topics/Questions:

  • Introduction

  • What is SB 1079? Was this bill even necessary?

  • How will SB 1079 change the courthouse step process? Which parties will be impacted?

  • What is a 45 redemption period and who is an eligible bidder?

  • Who pays for unrecorded liens in this new process? Is it $1,000 per day total limit or $1,000 per day per violation (stagnant water + dead grass = $2k per day?)

  • Is it likely that courthouse step buyers will create nonprofits to compete?

  • Are homeowners really capable of delivering cashier’s checks?

  • Are trustee’s being asked to shoulder this redemption period?

  • SB 1079 Forbids bundling of properties. Was this something that happened often? Would this stop the GSEs from bulk selling notes?

  • Who loses here?

  • HHH fund analysis shows LA spending $530k on affordable units. Are there government entities prepared to buy these houses?

  • The CA Senate analysis says CA learned some rough lessons and outlines why this was necessary but with some questionable logic.

    1. Vacant properties. References Cleveland Fed Reserve Report about the dangers of vacant properties on safety, price damage, etc. Ohio used its hard-hit TARP funds, over $239 million thus far, to demolish over 16,000. Was this an appropriate comparison? Can we walk through the post-Great Recession foreclosure process and now Covid update? Ohio is also a judicial foreclosure state. Report mentions sherrif sale?
    2. Wall Street. Blames Wall Street for gobbling up 13,000 homes at low prices. What did Wall Street do for pricing in California? Were they leaving properties vacant? There’s talk of Wall Street preparing to buy more houses but is a wave of foreclosures possible and will the prices make sense?
    3. Homeownership. CA homeownership rate peaked at 60.2% but on the backs of loan programs that triggered the Great Recession. Dodd-Frank created CFPB and a strict ability to repay rules for mortgages. Ownership in CA is now 54.8%. Did we learn that maybe homeownership isn’t for everyone?
  • How can small business owners stay on top of these things that have impact on our businesses

  • How to we best engage in the process?

  • How reliant are lawmakers on professional lobbyists with a deep understanding of the industry?

  • What do you wish more people understood about the lobbying process?

  • Does the local voice really matter?

  • In California, unmaintained properties were a lifeline for cities fining banks. As property taxes were decimated, cities hired code enforcement. What was your experience during the downturn and code enforcement?

  • What can be done now that this has passed both CA Senate and Assembly?

  • What are trustees doing to prepare?

Articles of Interest

2 Likes

Who is in charge of the redemption period? Is the trustee the one now handling that? How is that going to work?

Great question. This is definitely something we want to cover in this interview. The truth is, I have no idea. And what happens if you have multiple bids?

The show mentioned the United Trustee Sale is having an event that trustee sale buyers in California may want to check out as they will be covering operational details on how to handle changes due to SB 1079. Unfortunately, it’s happening the week of 10/5-10/8. I am posting this early.

Thank you for doing this show. So we don’t know under SB1079 who is responsible for liens and fines during the redemption period? I’m a little confused on logistics. The eligible bidder must provide an intent to bid and then has 45 days to perform, right? Title would not transfer until the eligible bidder performs within the 45 day period in which case the investor never holds title?

1 Like

This is confusing. Mike said in the show title would not transfer if there was an eligible bidder that submitted the intent to bid. I did not read anything in the bill that clarified who is responsible for those kinds of charges and it is always a risk when buying at trustee sale. While it’s not as much an issue as it was during the downturn, unrecorded liens and current occupants are the biggest concern.

1 Like