Care to guess what happened next?  Determined to remain only one payment down, they sent the next payment, and IT WAS RETURNED.  It was followed by a notice of default.

So now the clients are talking to bankruptcy counsel and are looking for ways to get the constructive attention of PNC Bank.

How did the homeowner get into this bind?  He’d been trying to negotiate a resolution and a modification right up to the last minute, and at the last minute, the lender said “no”.

I’d like to report that this scenario is aberrational, but it isn’t.  I am not seeing many accepted modifications or even workouts, much less ones that actually improve the homeowner’s situation.  If you are facing foreclosure, don’t bank on positive response from the bank if you envision bankruptcy as the last ditch choice.  There may no capable bankruptcy attorneys available who can turn a case around in less than a week.

Be clear:  it’s your property until there is a foreclosure sale. Your rights to the property are unchanged by any default on the mortgage payment.  Likewise, the lender is still an outsider unless and until it obtains title to the property by being the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale.

I’m fascinated by the concept of being “in foreclosure”.  It seems to be akin to being  ”in collections”.  Neither are real places, or even changes in your legal rights.  Yet laymen seem to think of them as situations in which the rules change and consequences follow. [ I have a mental image of them being dank dungeons with manacles on the wall, and cobwebs hanging from the beams.]  True, that each represents a process that may lead to a change in legal rights, or a loss of property, but they are roadways, not fixed “places.”

The foreclosure process, which by California law, takes a minimum of  four months from formal notice of default to foreclosure sale, is being drawn out these days,  by the action or inaction of the foreclosing creditor.  My assumption is that their systems simply can’t process that many foreclosures and the market can’t absorb that much bank owned property.

Which brings me to my current favorite sermon:  even if it’s inevitable that you lose the house to foreclosure, stay in the property and live payment free until there is actually a sale.  You may be astounded at how long that interval is, how very much longer than the four month legal process.

My position has been that current income is the only part of the means test calculation that was determined by looking backward.  By statute, Congress defined “current monthly income” to be backward looking. (Conclude what you will about Congress.)  Expenses remained forward looking.

So, if the debtor expected to surrender real estate and lose the interest deduction, their taxes should be calculated, not on what they might owe this year, when they still had the deduction, but looking forward to their tax obligation post surrender of the property.

Others have wondered whether the taxes ought to travel with the income in the look back period.  At some level, that’s logical, since it defines how much income the debtor has that is disposable, in the broadest sense.  [If you've followed my views on the means test, you will know that any argument about the means test based on logic is per se faulty!]

In my recent case, the UST stated clearly that taxes were a forward looking expense. Of course in my case, where I had increased the tax burden to reflect the fact that in 09 the debtors had not paid all of the mortgage interest due and would therefore have a smaller deduction than in past years, the UST wanted to look further forward to years in which they would be paying mortgage interest as it came due.

You had to know that any little victory would be diluted by the UST’s world view, didn’t you?

In some cases, the road to foreclosure seems to be a wandering path rather than an expressway.  Case in point:  relief from stay was granted in my client’s case on April 15th.  The notice of default, the first step in the statutory foreclosure process, was not recorded until six months later.

Those six months are months the clients lived payment free in the house.  They continue to try to wend their way through the lender’s loan modification process.  Even if they aren’t successful in getting a modification, it will be at least another 4 months before the lender can hold a foreclosure sale.

This is a recent example that reinforces a story I’ve told before, about the client who moved his family out of their large comfortable home as soon as he saw they could not keep it.  They rented a house, and worked on preparing for a bankruptcy filing.  More than a year later, when we were ready to file, the lender had still not taken the first step in foreclosure.  Twelve months the client paid rent, when he could have stayed where he was, at no cost.

Harney is clearly bothered by this choice by people who appear to be able to make the payments, but elect instead to default and lose the property.  In this and an earlier column, he raises the question of the morality of  elective mortgage default.

I’ve been chewing on that idea:  is there a moral issue when a borrower voluntarily defaults?  The law attaches  consequences to certain promises, such as the promise to repay money borrowed.  If the borrower is capable of repaying but does not, is that a moral failing?  Or is it nothing more than the weighing of the consequences of shunning a legal duty vs. the cost of performing the promise?

I tried thinking about this from the lender’s side of the transaction:  are there any moral obligations that the lender assumes when they make the loan?  Could the lender exercise a legal right (to foreclose, say) and yet violate a moral precept?  (All of this presupposes that corporations have morals, or moral duties, of course.)  Would a lender have a moral obligation to modify a loan in the absence of a legal obligation?

Or, is all that is involved in the mortgage loan transaction the undertaking to expose yourself to certain unpleasant consequences if you default?

It bears more thought.  I routinely ask bankruptcy clients whether it makes sense to continue to pay on mortgages where the loan balance is significantly greater than the property’s value.  I want them to consider the option of walking away in the course of the bankruptcy.

The homeowner was a single man and the property was a one bedroom one bath condo.  Life wouldn’t have to change much before a 1 and 1 is too small for a married man.  He’s filing bankruptcy now and will take the credit hit and get on the way to a fresh start.

If he elects to keep the condo and cure the arrears, he sets himself up for another possible credit hit when he needs to sell a property still underwater.

Yes, and how do you expect to do that?   I get no meaningful answer.

This house business has become so irrational and  embedded that I’m thinking it’s a resistant strain of something. (Is there a strain of “Home Flu”?)   “House” or “home” is like God or motherhood:  a positive one dare not challenge with words about economic reality.

What’s interesting about these reactions is that seldom are we talking about the long standing family home.  We’re talking about houses purchased in the past  five years or so.  Which of course corresponds to the frantic run up in Bay Area home prices.  So these homes were, from the beginning, never likely to be the family seat.

How do I persuade people that a home is simply housing, and what’s really important are the people who live there?

Before the recent crisis, lenders typically issued a notice of default after three missed payments, and marched fairly briskly to a foreclosure sale.  I’m now seeing longer periods before initiating foreclosure and even voluntary postponements of sales by the lender.

This trend is particularly important to those who have decided to let the house go to foreclosure.   Where the loan terms are impossible, and without the possibility of modifying the loan in Chapter 13, or the income stream has shrunken, homeowners are trying to calculate how long they can remain in the house before title to the house passes to the lender.

Sadly, in this economy, for many homeowners the only return they will see on their investment in a home is the right to live there, payment free, until the foreclosure.

That’s essentially the same story I hear from clients with adjustable rate, pick a payment loans on their homes.  The financial professionals advising them talked only about the immediate consequences of the loan, and downplayed the risks.  Over and over, clients tell me that when they questioned the broker about how they were going to make the full principal and interest payment, they were assured the broker would get them a better loan before any damage was done.

Why is it that politicians opposing mortgage modification in bankruptcy want to demonize the unsophisticated borrower without regard to the supposed professionals who sold and profited from these exotic financial products?  Are we going to hear that the city council of Lewisburg, Tennesee bought more sewers for the town than they could afford?

When are we going to put our energies into a solution to the foreclosure crisis, rather than finding a scapegoat?