Oregonian Has Story on Oregon Court of Appeals Decision Requiring Continued Extended Use Period for LIHTC Properties, Even if LIHTC Terminated.

Story (likely will appear in Sunday or Monday print Oregonian) is HERE.

Appeals Court Decision is HERE.

Would welcome any attorney comments to this post adding perspective on import of this case.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Resource Materials: MultiState Foreclosure Investigations from State Attorney Generals.

PR from Iowa Attorney General is HERE; Joint statement from all Attorney Generals is HERE.

Oregon AG PR is HERE. From that PR:

Oregon is not a judicial foreclosure state, which means that a court does not approve a lender's decision to foreclose on a home. As a consequence, the affidavits that have come under fire in other states as being false are not used here in Oregon. However, in 2009 the Legislature passed SB 628, which requires lenders to tell homeowners that they have certain basic rights, including a right to request a loan modification and a right to meet with their lender before foreclosure can be initiated. It also requires the lender file an affidavit in support of the foreclosure. In 2010, the Legislature strengthened those protections (SB 3610) by requiring that the affidavit be filed at least 5 days in advance and that the lender provide an explanation if the loan modification doesn't qualify, among other things. Compliance with SB 628 and SB 3610 (Codified as Oregon Revised Statutes 86.737) will be a special focus...

A separate survey of state foreclosure laws from the National Consumer Law Center is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Not Quite Sure What to Make of this 9th Circuit Case on Fair Housing Law Application to Homeowners Insurance.

Decision is HERE. Says:

in a separate order filed concurrently with this opinion we certify to the Supreme Court of Texas the dispositive question of whether Texas law permits an insurance company to price insurance by using credit-score factors that have a racially disparate impact that, were it not for the McCarran-Ferguson Act, would violate the FHA.

If anyone has an insights, please add as comment to this post.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Counsel Clarifies Some Broker Fees Under RESPA.

WaPo has Kenneth Harney's column on the subject HERE. From the column, a summary of HUD Counsel Karovsky's letter:

"Kanovsky warned that if the total charges "exceed the amount of the commission for listing and selling the home that are reflected in the real estate broker's or agent's listing agreement," then HUD has the legal power to review the extra charge "to determine whether additional services were provided" to justify the add-on.
If little or no services are performed, HUD would treat this as a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, subject to significant penalties. Kanovsky also warned about fees charged when there is no contract or agreement permitting the agent or broker to impose those charges. For example, if a listing broker charged the buyer an administrative fee of $250 but there was no contractual language sanctioning the charge, HUD might treat that add-on as an illegal fee."

Don't know why column didn't provide link to actual HUD Counsel's letter, but you will find it HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.