The Promise To Secure Loan Modifications For an Upfront Fee Lands 5 Orange County Men In Jail.

A 2009 California law protects homeowners forbidding any person or business to charge an upfront fee for loan modification services was breached.
The five are charged with at least seven counts of felony grand theft and other charges are:

  • Jacob J. Cunningham, 24, of Irvine
  • Justin D. Koelle, 23, of Costa Mesa
  • Andrew M. Phalen, 25, of Mission Viejo
  • Dominic A. Nolan, 30, of Irvine
  • John D. Silva, 27, of Irvine.

Federal officials were assisted in the investigation by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Huntington Beach police, the California Department of Real Estate and other state and local agencies.

The 5 men started fraudulent businesses promising they could secure loan modifications for an upfront fee that was refundable if no help was obtained, but they kept the money, according to a statement Friday by Christy Romero, the inspector general who oversees the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Along with asking for upfront fees and pocketing home owners money they are also accused of regularly changing the names, phone numbers and addresses of the companies they operated, including CSFA Home Solutions, Mortgage Solution Specialists Inc., CS & Associates and National Mortgage Relieve Center.
Investigators said three of the men, Cunningham, Nolan and Silva operated a separate scheme in which they sent out forged “conditional approval” letters to homeowners with forged logos from popular mortgage banking departments of CitiFinancial or CitiMortgage. The letters allegedly promised potential

Three of the five can be found on Facebook. Below are their profile photos.

Andrew M. Phalen, 25

Andrew M. Phalen, 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jacob J. Cunningham, 24

Jacob J. Cunningham, 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dominic A. Nolan

Dominic A. Nolan

 

Redding Realtor Accused of Stealing From His Listings

Realtor FraudRandall Byrd realtor is being charged with four misdemeanor counts for stealing from a home he was listing.

He is accused of stealing doorknobs, plates for doors, and locks for doors. Bryd, once a broker for Keller Williams Realty Office in Redding now closed,  works for Platinum Properties currently. Court documents state charges against him are mortgage stripping, grand theft, attempted mortgage stripping, and attempted grand theft. The accusations come when Byrd asked Jeterbilt Construction to remove carpet from either his or his girlfriend’s rentals and replace it with a bank owned listing.

This isn’t the first time. Byrd has a second charge from last March when Byrd is accused of removing door hardware from another foreclosed property.

The Shasta Association of Realtors said Byrd is being questioned because of self policing among members. Byrd is set to be arraigned March 12.

 

The Dilemma of Renting an Illegal In-Law Unit or Illegal Apartment

What is an illegal unit or also known as illegal apartment?
Typically, such a dwelling is one that was built without permits, or one in which the rooms were constructed with the blessing of the building inspector, but with the kitchen or stove put in afterwards.  Another way to determine this is by counting the number of units in the building and comparing this with the “Certificate of Occupancy” issued by the City.  The benefit for the landlord of owning a building with an in-law unit is the extra cash flow it produces.  This article will explore some of the risks of such an endeavor and how they can best be managed.

What are the problems?
The tenant can be evicted from the illegal unit and the landlord may have to make them a stiff relocation payment (presently $5,101 per tenant, maxing at three tenants, plus possible extra money for the disabled or elderly).  There are also some theories that tenants can claim as justification for the repayment of part or all of the rent that they paid while they were living in the unit.  Additionally, there is the potential for habitability claims since, quite often, the unit does not conform to building code requirements.  Sometimes there are serious safety lapses due to the fact that there is lack of a second exit.  This can result in an affirmative lawsuit by the tenants for these conditions.  Sometimes the landlord has the proper type of insurance and sometimes not.  Therefore the cost of defending these lawsuits can often be considerable.  It is important to note that when selling the building the non-complying unit should be properly disclosed as an illegal unit without any attempt to embellish it.  If the building inspector issues a Notice of Violation, the owner will likely be forced to remove the unit.

How should the landlord properly terminate such a tenancy?
If the building inspector has issued a Notice of Violation, under the local San Francisco ordinance the landlord will need to obtain permits and issue a proper eviction notice.  This will usually require sixty days notice (30 days if the tenancy is a year or less in duration), and payment of the relocation money mentioned above.  Typically, as there is no legitimate defense since the landlord seemingly has no choice in the matter, these cases are rarely contested.  However, the tenant can still bring his affirmative claims.  In some cases, the tenant will have breached the rental agreement and this may allow the landlord to sue them for nonpayment of rent or nuisance.  Interestingly enough, the courts will not enforce the terms of such a rental agreement, because it is considered an illegal contract.  However, other court decisions have held that the landlord should be able to recover possession of the premises, i.e., terminate the tenancy.  Therefore the landlord could bring a nonpayment of rent case, and certainly a nuisance case, and recover the unit, while most likely not recovering a money judgment in his or her favor.  In that scenario, the landlord could avoid paying the relocation money to the tenant.  Of course, each case depends on its merits, and sometimes the landlord may agree to pay some voluntary relocation money to the tenant, to avoid the cost of trial.

How Owner may avoid being sued.
First of all, the landlord should obtain an appropriate insurance policy for an income property, rather than a homeowner’s policy.  The owner should also be sure that there is coverage for claims such as “wrongful eviction” and other broad forms of liability.  It could also be helpful, despite the downsides, to the landlord initially disclosing to the tenant that she is renting an illegal unit.  That way, at least, the tenant would not be able to claim that she was defrauded into renting an illegal unit.  It is common that utility bill disputes arise in these situations because the tenant is not afforded her own individual meter.  These minor disputes can erupt into major litigation.  The same can also happen with security deposits.  The landlord should be careful to avoid disputes with tenants and refund deposits in full.  We also often see personality disputes, since sometimes the landlord is living upstairs and the tenant right below, and noise and even cooking smells can easily permeate from one unit to the other.  Often no one is to blame for this since the extra unit was not built into the original design for the structure.  It is also helpful if the landlord is careful in selecting their tenants.  Getting a personal recommendation from a friend or family member can be helpful.

In general, a landlord is best advised to treat his tenants with respect and understanding.  In particular, the landlord should understand that renting such a unit puts him or her in jeopardy of some or all of the consequences outlined above.  As in most personal and business relationships, some effort at keeping peaceful communications in place may very often preserve the relationship as a healthy and profitable one for the owner, as well as for the tenant.

__________________________________________________________

Steven Adair MacDonald, Esq. has been representing landlords and tenants in San Francisco since 1982 and is the author of two books, Landlord Tenant Solutions in California, and The San Francisco Rent Board User’s Guide.

 


Consumer Beware – Dual Agency Greed Will Only Hurt the Seller. Make Sure Your Real Estate Representative Is Publicizing Your Home Listing.

There is a real estate brokerage firm in San Diego California that is following the lead of a couple of other firms that will not allow their real estate  listings to get posted on common listing sites such as MLS, Trulia, Zillow and Realtor.com

Besides making accusations that home listings which get posted on  sites  such as the sites listed above make their way to Craigslist and cause crimes to be committed and that other Real Estate Agents get access to their listings, a real estate broker from the fore mentioned firm makes the argument for “dual agency”  without calling it such.

By purposely avoiding to publicizing listings to potential home buyers who otherwise would have seen them will only hurt sellers because they will likely lose out on getting top dollar,  multiple bids,  open house traffic, or having their homes on the market  longer than it should.

Home buyers do rely on the internet to research homes for sale and use sites such as MLS, Trulia, Zillow and Realtor.com to find listing. Home sellers must also understand dual agency increases the complication of any real estate transaction. Lawsuits involving dual agencies have become more and more common. Any real estate firm desiring to serve as dual agents have to be informed and get written consent from all parties, PRIOR to the start of the representation. Real estate firms should also review their listings and representation agreements to make sure they disclose possible dual agency situations that can arise from representing multiple sellers or multiple buyers to avoid litigation.

Real estate brokers and agents should give serious thought to all potential consequences before entering into a dual agency situation and sellers should beware of what they lose before picking a broker who isn’t publicizing their listings to full potential.

Please watch the video and let us know your thoughts.

Mortgage Brokers Once Again We are Confused who NAMB Represents the Broker or their Pockets

Why are the National Assocation of Mortgage Brokers’s (NAMB’s) Mike Anderson and MBA‘s Dave Stevens talking at the NAMB convention?