February 10, 2011 – Daily Brief

The free enterprise solution is for homeowners who are in over their head mortgage-wise is to short sell their property and start over. Short sales typically affect a buyer’s credit for about 24 months as opposed to a foreclosure having a minimum 7 year impact before they can qualify for another home loan. Loan modifications are only granted about 1 in 9 times, and then many foreclose after being modified anyway. Government incentive programs regarding refinance and modifications are supposed to help those whose negative financial situation is temporary, although as we all know, what is the definition of ‘temporary?’ The only thing I’ve seen in the past few years come out of programs such as Making Home Affordable, etc. is that lenders have paced their foreclosures and shortsales so that they haven’t happened all at once, while collecting incentive $$ from Uncle Sam for refi’s and modifications.

And it also punishes those of us who lived within our means, kept a security savings account, and didn’t overextend ourselves betting on rising values. When I come from Vegas on the losing end, I don’t expect others to bail me out. In the long run, this encourages MORE of this behavior, not less.

As an FYI, under a California law originally dating back to the Depression Era, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580b prohibits a purchase money mortgage lender on a true residential property from trying to get a deficiency judgment, which is typically described as the difference between the mortgage loan amount and the fair market value of the property: “No deficiency judgment shall lie in any event after a sale of real property…under a deed of trust or mortgage on a dwelling for not more than four families given to a lender to secure repayment of a loan which was in fact used to pay all or part of the purchase price of that dwelling occupied, entirely or in part, by the purchaser.” Section 580b protects home mortgage borrowers on the original mortgage which allowed they to buy their property, whether the mortgage lender is the seller or a financial institution. Section 580b does not protect borrowers who have “refinanced” or “taken out an additional mortgage after the closing of their home purchase”. However, under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580d, if the mortgage lender or its assignee chooses to foreclose a home through a trustee’s sale, rather than through a long form judicial foreclosure lawsuit, the mortgage lender also cannot obtain a “deficiency judgment” against a borrower. That code section provides: “No judgment shall be rendered for any deficiency upon a note secured by a deed of trust or mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein hereafter executed in any case in which the real property or estate for years therein has been sold by the mortgagee or trustee under power of sale contained in the mortgage or deed of trust.” In practical terms, except for homes with million dollar mortgages, most mortgage lenders do not ‘foreclose the long way’, through judicial foreclosure, because of the time and attorneys fees cost of doing so. Creating the third of the triumverate of Code of Civil Procedure sections to protect home mortgage borrowers is CCP Section 580e, which provides that as long as the borrower does not commit fraud with respect to the short sale, or commit waste (i.e. seriously damage or neglect the home) a first mortgage lender who consents to a short sale cannot later sue the borrower for a deficiency judgment: “580e. (a) No judgment shall be rendered for any deficiency under a note secured by a first deed of trust or first mortgage for a dwelling of not more than four units, in any case in which the trustor or mortgagor sells the dwelling for less than the remaining amount of the indebtedness due at the time of sale with the written consent of the holder of the first deed of trust or first mortgage. Written consent of the holder of the first deed of trust or first mortgage to that sale shall obligate that holder to accept the sale proceeds as full payment and to fully discharge the remaining amount of the indebtedness on the first deed of trust or first mortgage. (b) If the trustor or mortgagor commits either fraud with respect to the sale of, or waste with respect to, the real property that secures the first deed of trust or first mortgage, this section shall not limit the ability of the holder of the first deed of trust or first mortgage to seek damages and use existing rights and remedies against the trustor or mortgagor or any third party for fraud or waste.” The reason I make these points about California Code of Civil Procedure sections designed to protect residential borrowers is that in states other than California mortgage lenders CAN seek deficiency judgments against residential borrowers, and readers of national real estate industry columns are often frightened by them because they do not refer to the California exceptions. As always, it’s important for a residential mortgage borrower thinking of acquiescing in a mortgage lender foreclosing to consult with a competent bankruptcy/debtor’s rights or real estate lawyer, to understand the consequences of the borrower’s situation. However, in writing commentary about foreclosure in California, no layman should be typing the words “deficiency judgment” because procedurally they are very difficult for a mortgage lender to obtain, far more difficult that one could imagine.

Todd Changing the time limit will not make much difference, because, the fine is only imposed if a person wishes to retrieve their signs. Leave them with the city, or claim they are not yours, and all bets are off. This is another “feel good” ordinance that will, most likely, have little effect. “If the owner of the signs wishes to collect the signs, the owner can be cited administratively, and a $50 fine for the first “day” of violation (regardless of the number of signs collected by the City) would be assessed. Thereafter, if there is a second violation of the prohibition on placing signs within the public right of way within a one year period of the first violation, the owner of such signs, upon retrieving the signs from the City, would be subject to an administrative fine of $100 PER SIGN. A third violation would carry a fine of $250 PER SIGN.” The question still remains however; why our new City Attorney has not explained his office’s changed position on Campaign Signs and Free Speech? Remember it was our previous City Attorney who took the position that Campaign signs represent free speech and could not be limited in size. (See City Council Minutes dated Nov 25, 2008 Agenda item 17). One bright spot is that this ordinance will apply to all “Temporary Freestanding Signs”, such as the ones new development sales folks put on every telephone pole. It is not going to stop them but it will make it a lot more costly.

Alan: The reason Master Newton thought the free speech rights trumped the ordinance was because people were accusing incumbents of violating the sign ordinance and selective enforcement.

One can still find McKeon signs posted on light poles in major shopping areas like Albersons at Bouquet and Haskell. Must have had a cherry picker to put them up.

This ordinance is INGENIOUS! They have crafted a way to suppress first amendment rights with the low probability of ever producing a plaintiff that can actually take them to federal court.

Typical.

ACLU might take a test case on pro bono! Also, note the acts requires the person to be seen putting up the sign…

The ACLU will not be able to find a suitable plaintiff. Read all about it in next Sunday’s Signal!

me too

My understanding is that a physician who is aware of a condition that could cause a person to become impaired while driving is supposed to refer that information to the DMV. Seems like each of these persons was previously diagnosed. What is hypocritical is keeping that information from the public when something like this happens.

You’re Saugus Steve now? Does the change in names come a change in uniforms too?

From what I have seen in public forum so far, the July 4th incident involved someone making a bad decision resulting in horrendous outcome. The other incident involved someone with a medical condition that may have not been in control when the accident occurred. In the first case I would look at the driver’s history and see if she has previous incidents which would demonstrate carelessness or reckless activity. In the second case they should look and see if he was diagnosed or warned before about a medical condition. If he ignored this advice, or orders, then he should be held liable as well. But I agree with Petz in that the most that happens with someone who is diagnosed with a condition that could impair their ability to drive, is removal of their driving priveleges. I understand your point though Nate, it’s just sad in each of these cases due to the loss of life.

Jeff said you cause loss of life and you go to jail end of story. So they should bring charges and make him have doctors testify he has a condition and the court should permanent yank his license, Otherwise he should be in jail! Let me get and Amen! Otherwise I say injustice!

Also, check out the timeline of internal City emails from last summer: http://savesantaclaritalibraries.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/what-happened-staff-bringing-back-the-library-issue-the-process-part-2/#more-704 Be sure to click on the “click here for a complete file with documents” for a clear rendering of the the emails.

Lori…two questions. 1) How will one access the survey? 2) How are the vision statements coming along? Did we pick a winner yet?

@Lori Rivas: As you know, the reason the survey will not be available at the libraries is that the County runs the current libraries and they have not given permission nor would it be appropriate to place City Library surveys in a County Library facility. Your very biased comments, providing only the information you select incomplete as it is, has become tiresome. Speaking strictly for myself, I find it extremely rude that you and several other members of “the public” seated at the back of the room during CPLAC meetings chatter loudly throughout the entire meeting. I sit in the second row front and have trouble clearly hearing the conversation because of your constant conversations. Hold your own meetings if you have that much to discuss amongst yourselves. I understand that you do not agree with the decision to leave COLA although that decision has already been made, you constantly ridicule the process and the participants, and have nothing but disdain for those of us working hard to provide our input and help plan the best possible public libraries for residents. What I do not get is why you bother to come at all if you are going to talk throughout the whole meeting and simply come to distract those of us who are there to work. Lori and other members of the public attending CPLAC meetings, please exhibit the courtesy you expect from us. Especially you Lori, since you get up at the end of the meeting and talk for 10 minutes about your “issues” and we sit quietly and listen. Your lack of courtesy during meetings does nothing to gain converts to your cause. If this were a more formal meeting such as City Council, you would be escorted from the room. Yes, I am the person “shushing” you folks on more than one occasion that you continue to ignore. If the inconsiderate chatter continues, as a committee member I will request that the “public” in attendance be reminded of meeting norms at City meetings. Your participation is welcome; your inconsiderate behavior is not.

Not me chatting at the back, and I understand your point. I was planning on saying something to the talkers myself. I do not constantly ridicule the committee members — in fact, I’ve said you all have diligently volunteered your time, and are working to complete the Dubberly’s exercises. I have zero disdain for committee members, and have never expressed any such sentiment, either publicly or privately. I do criticize the process to which Dubberly claims to follow because, quite frankly, he is cherry picking the process to manage a prescribed outcome. I do criticize the City’s methods, the survey, specifically, in this instance, because it is poorly executed and will garner nothing but very biased results. As I said, more reliable results can be gathered from existing databases, ie, the County circulation records, the US Census, etc. I didn’t speak for ten minutes. Maybe five. I try to be considerate of everyone’s time.

@Lori Rivas: You say you are not among the “chatters” but I personally observed you standing and leaning over folks in the back “public row” directly behind me talking to folks on more than one occasion. In fact, you looked directly at me when I said “shush” yet again. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you are not calling me a liar. Either way, please be cognizant of how distracting the chatter is and do better at future meetings, especially since you are the de facto opposition “ring leader” at these meetings. I do feel that you show disdain for those of us involved in the process by your constant negative comments. I point it out to you not to engender more discord but to illustrate how others view your comments such as me. If you have any constructive suggestions on how CPLAC meetings could be better, I would like to hear them. Please understand the decision has been made and many of us are looking forward to the day when our libraries are truly “our libraries” and your negative comments will not change that outcome. Lori please become part of the solution and let go of a problem that does not exist. After July 1, all of these libraries will belong to all of us with programs, materials, etc we have asked for. I personally welcome your suggestions on what you believe would make City public libraries even better. I repeat your negativity is tiresome.

Jesus. Berta is “shushing” people now? You are one bitter control freak.

@Gang Fang: Thou shall not take the Lords’ name in vain. If only I could control the miscreants at least. One of my first actions would be to make you into a real human being. Now hush boyo.

Does the “H” in Jesus H. Christ stand for Harper? I’m as real as yer mullet, girlo.

@Gang Fang: You had better hope it does not. Is that you Nate, Damage Inc, Blazing Monk, et al? When you first started posting under Gang Fang I thought you probably were Nate especially since your multiple “aliases” stopped attacking me and posting your nastier comments and Gang Fang picked up the slack. I hesitated though because as Gang Fang you objectify and are intimidated by women, which is why you try to bully but only under cover, coward. Nate etc on the other hand has spoken warmly of his muse “Olenka” so I figured you were probably R. K. instead. However, this mullet comment, hum… Either way, your day of reckoning will come…

Shush.

I own you Berta. Anyone calls you out and you believe its me. I am that good.

@Lori Rivas: my comments stand as written. Just as you have a right to your opinions and comments, so do I. It is MY opinion that your refusal to accept the decision to create our own public library system, provide workable suggestions to enhance the planning process and the outcome, talking throughout the meetings, and nearsighted focus on complaining about meetings, “the Dubberly” as you snidely call him, etc does nothing to produce “ part of the solution”. You disagree with my opinion.

Shame on you Lori! Ron Dubberly would say you don’t know how to read or “wright”. It should of course be “a Dubberly” not “the Dubberly.” “The Dubbery” is reserved only to reference those people who are clearly a cut above the rest in correct opinionated opinionism, “a Dubbery” to those with disagreeable opinionated opinionism corrupted by reason and/or fact, and Dubberly to those lacking opinionation but strong in pseudo factoidism, and who speaketh in a sleep inducing manner. Example: “Dubberly spoke to people Thursday night which included the Berta and a Lori. The Bertha later accused a Lori of rudeness, but did not realize that most of the disruptions were coming from a few members in the Berta’s own group. Despite this error, the Bertha should be continued to be referred to as such, since the rule is not based on any metric related to correctness, but solely on the consistency of the opinionated opinionism and the consistence wordy denigration of disagreeably opinionated miscreants.

@ Library Card Carrying Bookreader: You apparently attended the meeting given your “wright” reference but also apparently have trouble with both spelling and reading comprehension. My guess is you are also seated at the back of the room. Perhaps you need to spend more time at the library brushing up on your English language skills? I very clearly said that the “chatter” came from the BACK of room behind my seat and that I was seated in the second row at the FRONT of the room. Our small group is busy participating as committee members. We have no time or need to chatter amongst ourselves throughout the meeting as we all three perform assigned tasks, volunteer to help, ask questions, and offer additional information relevant to the presentation topic. Lori responded that she made an innocent typo. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You on the other hand…

I on dah utter hand otta shtup util I make know typos. U laugh you’rr head of at Dubberly’s “wright” mispel oar bad yoke. I donut no witch. But u meen oar u donut no pour humor wen u here it. tea he.

@ Library Card Carrying Bookreader: interesting definition of humor…

Hey, thanks.

Nothing is interesting about a mullet. Yours, an overweight trucker’s, an inbred redneck……none of ‘em.

@Gang Fang: Then why are you bringing up the subject in the first place? You seem to be obsessed by mullets and truckers. Me, I am just grateful to have healthy hair not falling out in clumps so you want to criticize my hair, ok.

Anytime some pokes at you, you are certain it is me. You must be quite taken with me.

@Nate: If there is ONE thing in life I am certain of, it is this: If ANYONE pokes at me; it is definitely not you dear!!!!

This weekend my split time for the firecracker 10k was 8:19. Pretty rough 10k though starts in Chinatown goes up and behind dodger stadium and back. Beside the 2 miles that climbed my splits with in the 7:10 range. You run?

I run only because my job requires it lol. I am starting to try and get back into it but knees are killing me thanks to my football dreams. You ever run the hills in the Summit Park? KILLER!