About Richard Keyt

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Richard Keyt has created 9 blog entries.

Can I Prevent a Foreclosure of a Lien on Arizona Real Estate if the Lender Cannot Produce the Original Note?

Question:  I have several investment properties in Arizona that may go into foreclosure.  I am looking for an attorney who understands and believes in the "Produce the Note" defense.  Can you represent me? Answer:  No.  The "produce the note" defense is where the borrower attempts to stop a foreclosure on real estate secured by a lien on the basis that the party foreclosing (the lender) cannot produce the original promissory note signed by the borrower(s).  Some states have apparently allowed this as a defense to a foreclosure on real estate. I would not take the case for two reasons: The cost to litigate the defense could be very, very expensive.  I would not want you to waste your money on legal fees. No Arizona appellate court has ruled on the issue, but there is at least one Arizona case that could decide the outcome against the borrower in favor of the lender. Issue 1:  Legal Fees to Defend To defend against the foreclosure under a deed of trust on Arizona real property, the borrower must file a lawsuit in Superior Court asking the Court to stop the foreclosure and find that the lender does not have the right to foreclose because the lender cannot produce the original note.  Do you have the money to pay to litigate?  To take a case to trial could cost $10,000 - $50,000.  Are you willing to pay that kind of money to pursue a lawsuit?  If you win at the trial court level and the defendant appeals, the cost to pursue the appeal will further increase your legal fees and costs.  I can't imagine you could find a lawyer to take the case on a contingency so you would [...]

By |2019-03-17T09:21:14-07:00February 5th, 2010|Foreclosure Law|0 Comments

Federal Recession Aid Ending Soon

Some federal programs established to help people purchase homes and cars or to modify existing mortgage loans are set to end or wind down early next year. Some may be extended, but many may feel the impact of the end of these programs, such as higher interest rates for mortgages and car loans. See the Wall Street Journal article for more information.

By |2019-03-17T09:21:13-07:00December 15th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments

Confusion about Short Sales and Arizona’s Anti-Deficiency Law

I consult with property owners concerning their risks, protections and obligations under Arizona’s foreclosure laws, as well as the legal, tax and practical implications of alternatives to foreclosure, such as short sales, deeds in lieu of foreclosure or loan modifications.  One recurring issue that I address has to do with misinformation people are receiving from real estate agents and other sources - even legal professionals- concerning short sales. This area remains unclear, but many people still don't understand that short sales are fraught with uncertainties. A common assumption of many home owners and real estate agents is that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes always apply to protect borrowers in a short sale as well as a foreclosure. This is incorrect. The anti-deficiency protections clearly apply where a purchase money lender forecloses on an Arizona property. In a foreclosure situation, Arizona statutes and case law define the circumstances in which a lender is prohibited from pursuing a deficiency action against the borrower. In many situations, the statutes allow the lender to pursue such an action against a borrower after foreclosure... When a borrower short sells a property, there is no automatic protection from a lawsuit by the lender for the balance of the note. Although there are cases that suggest a purchase money lender may be not be allowed to obtain a judgment against the borrower for balance of the note if the property and loan also qualify for anti-deficiency protection in a foreclosure, borrowers must be sure to obtain a personal release from the lender to be certain they are protected. I am aware of situations in which a home owner, ecstatic to obtain the bank’s approval of a short sale, quickly closes a short sale without carefully reading and understanding the [...]

By |2019-03-17T09:21:12-07:00November 16th, 2009|Foreclosure Law|0 Comments

Arizona Bankers Sue to Challenge Repeal of Change in Arizona Foreclosure Law

All Business:  The Arizona Capitol Times is reporting that the some Arizona banks filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court asking the court to throw out the law passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by the Governor that repealed a change in Arizona's foreclosure law that would have become effective on September 30, 2009.   The new law that was repealed would have made thousands of people who borrowed money to buy residential homes in Arizona liable for deficiencies after a foreclosure that did not pay the lender in full.

By |2019-03-17T09:18:48-07:00October 24th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments

FTC May Ban Upfront Fees to Homeowner Loan-aid Firms

Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC said today that the FTC may ban upfront payments made by home owners to companies hired to help the home owners resolve problems with their home loans. Government officials say scammers seeking to take advantage of borrowers in danger of default often charge upfront fees of $1,000 to $3,000 for help with loan modifications that rarely, if ever, pay off.  "If you are concerned about keeping your home, avoid any company that asks you for a large fee in advance. That is a real red flag," said Jon Leibowitz . . . .  Such upfront fees are already prohibited in 20 states.

By |2011-05-23T16:43:01-07:00September 17th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments

Court Finds Asarco Land Swap Illegal

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on September 14, 2009, that the land exchange between Asarco LLC, the Tuscon-based copper company, and Bureau of Land Management violates environmental laws.  The lawsuit was filed in 2001 by three environmental groups.  The swap was to give almost 11,000 acres of public land to Asarco in exchange for 7,300 acres of land owned by Asarco.

By |2011-05-23T16:46:42-07:00September 15th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments

Head of California Bar Rips Loan Modification Scammers

Howard Miller, the head of the California Bar Association, complained about lawyers hired to help to homeowners facing foreclosure, but who did nothing except take the homeowner's money. Crooked lawyers have long besmirched the profession's image, but the scale of their involvement in the loan modification scandals plaguing California homeowners has taken an unprecedented toll, the incoming president of the State Bar of California says. The proliferation of complaints against lawyers who said they could help rescue clients threatened with foreclosure has hurt tens of thousands of people and confronted the bar with a mounting and costly disciplinary burden, said Howard Miller, a partner with the Los Angeles plaintiffs' firm of Girardi & Keese.

By |2013-06-29T09:58:35-07:00September 15th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments

Short Sale Purchase Takes Time

Arizona Republic reporter Peter Corbett has an interesting story on problems and delays that can arise when trying to buy real estate using a "short sale."  A short sale occurs when the buyer wants to purchase the property for an amount that is less than the debt owed to the lender.  They seller asks the lender to accept the lower amount in exchange for releasing the lender's lien on the land so that the sale can close. 'It can take months to put together a short sale,' said Scottsdale Realtor Merrilee Edwards of Realty Executives. 'I tell my clients we might get this done in two months or six months, or we might not get it done at all.'

By |2011-05-23T16:47:29-07:00September 12th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments

Loan Modifications on Slow Pace

Arizona Republic: The U.S. Treasury reports that only 12% of eligible borrowers have started the loan modification process since the $75 billion federal loan modification program began.  The goal of a loan modification is reduce monthly payments to a level that the borrower can afford. Since the program's launch in March, 360,165 borrowers had received three-month trial modifications through August. If they keep up their payments for the trial period, lenders are supposed to extend the modifications for five years. Lenders have offered trial modifications to 571,354 borrowers, or about 15% of those eligible, since March, but not all have enrolled.

By |2011-05-24T11:09:11-07:00September 12th, 2009|Real Estate|0 Comments