Wow. That changes a few things.
Please see the response to who is responsible for damage during the 45-redemption period.
Non profit investment and asset management has become very sophisticated in the past 15 years. HUD/FNMA/Freddie have had non-profit carveouts for past 10 years on the NPL and REO sales. This is not new, has been happing at the federal level for a long time the only difference is the fed deals are large, non-profits spending anywhere from $1mm to $15mm in a single transaction. There won’t be fraud, non-profits won’t deploy capital without doing their DD, it is very efficient way to promote neighborhood stabilization and affordable housing. I’d like to hear your thoughts, email@example.com
Do you see a lot of federal money lining up for these kinds of initiatives? SB 1079 is a California specific law, are other states developing similar protocols? Do you only operate in CA?
No federal money, but there are federal non-profit carve outs when HUD sells NPLs and REO as well as FNMA/Freddie. For example, in the last HUD HECM auction in June totaled about $650mm in vacant NPL, non-profit carve out was 10%, so about $70mm. 3 non-profits ended splitting the carve out spending about $40mm combined. I do believe other states will follow CA’s lead, affordable housing is a serious problem in CA, non-profits tend to try to sell to underserved potential buyers and also many have lending programs or forgivable silent seconds to offer. Non-profits in this space have sophisticated technology, trading desks and secondary markets capability. I expect the new law will be very successful.
Are there national groups or collectives we should be following?
Iamaya - can you point to some non-profits that are doing this well. Unfortunately, even if you are right and non-profits do a good job, this particular law is an absolute disaster. For example, it is totally silent on how bidding after the sale works. It also assumes investors will continue to bid to set a base price, but leaves them in a terrible position post-sale where they have to maintain the property, but won’t get reimbursed if they do and one of these qualified bidders win. What that means - period without question - is that many of these homes will sit vacant longer. That was supposed to be one of the things this law fixed. So many more problems as well.
So if the tenant comes along and bids + $1 does he get the property just like that? Or does a new auction start?
I can imagine all kinds of unintended consequences here involving temporary loans to “qualified buyers”.
No new auction, they win just like that. I have not heard how the auction companies plan to handle when more than one buyer puts in a notice to bid. Keep in mind, there’s nothing in the law that prevents the buyer from walking away on day 45.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
This week we interviewed Greg Clark of Green Leaf Properties. Sean gives Greg some amazing ideas to explore. https://youtu.be/4CvuRawQISk
@darenjblomquist any updated a few months in? Are nonprofits and governments truly buying all the foreclosures?
I meant to follow up on this. I remember the old tales about people being paid NOT to bid at an auction Hey investor I’m a non-profit. Just wanted to let you know we’re putting in our one dollar over bid…
Just one of many unintended consequences I can think that will come out of this. (I’m not suggesting)
@FinanceAttorney might have heard a thing or two. I realize it’s still a little early.
It’s still a big black box. We started seeing our first issues related to SB 1079.
As expected, casualty loss is a big concern as you could have the insured not actually own the property.
Another issue is that the trustee administers the post-foreclosure bidding process and that leaves the mortgage lender who hired the foreclosure trustee completely in the dark about what’s happening post-foreclosure.
For example, the mortgage lender ends up being the foreclosure auction winner, the trustee receives a bid post-auction and the mortgage lender has no idea whether the bid is valid, or was fraudulently submitted (for example straw buyer), and must simply wait and see whether they end up owning the property after 45 days, meanwhile paying for casualty insurance on the property in anticipation of future ownership.
I bought a property from auction in VA. it was a trustee sale. The property is occupied by previous owner and he refused to vacate the property. His loan was 100K less then what i paid. I gave him a 30 days notice and after 30 days he is still there and making excuses. It is now 3 months since i bought this property. Any suggestion what should I do?
@afshah - Do you know if this is a holdover tenant or if it’s the owner? The CDC just updated the extension for evictions so I’d contact a local attorney about this to make sure you stay to the letter of the local law. There’s also cash for keys which most often used to incentivize a move.
I also want to share some other resources from past posts:
He is a previous owner and his property was sold by auction. i gave a 30 days notice after 40 days he was still there and now i have filed unlawful detainer case. what should i say in court to acheve custady ?
Personally, I would contact an eviction attorney that works in the county where the property is located. Make sure you’re crossing every “I” and dotting every “T”. Unfortunately, I’m not sure national and state rules have changed for holdover tenants/owners in the foreclosure process. Know of a good eviction attorney in the area?