We just found out recently that Illinois has the highest foreclosure rate in the country. Well, now homebuyers may have to pay the price for that.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac want to increase the fees charged for the mortgages they acquire in Illinois and four other states. In all five states where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are trying to increase fees, foreclosures take an inordinately long time. In Illinois, for example, the average foreclosure takes well over 500 days. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac feel that they need to recoup the increased costs they suffer as a result of this lengthy foreclosure process in Illinois, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and New York.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are increasing some of their fees nationwide effective December 1, 2012. The fees for Illinois and the four other states with long foreclosure processing times, however, are in addition to the nationwide increase that will take effect towards the end of this year.
If the new plan takes effect, it will kick in on January 1 of next year. Illinois homebuyers will be charged an upfront fee of 0.15 percent of their loan amount on condominiums, townhomes, single-family homes, and even apartment buildings up to four units. For every $200,000 in loans, the increased fee will translate to $42 annually. This fee is anticipated to be less than the fee that will be paid by homebuyers in Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and New York.
The fees are not a done deal yet. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is still weighing the pros and cons. So maybe we won't end up with extra fees in Illinois after all. Or, maybe, we'll end up with even greater fees than the ones they anticipate now. It remains to be seen.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Illinois Has Highest Foreclosure Rate in the Country!
According to date recently posted by RealtyTrac, Illinois had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation in August 2012. Nearly 18,000 Illinois homes received a foreclosure notice in August; approximately 8,600 of those were new foreclosures, meaning the lender just initiated the foreclosure in August.
Over 90% of the homes receiving foreclosure notices last month were in the Chicago area. Of those homes, most were in Cook County. 4,842 Cook County homes received their first foreclosure notice last month. Another 2,210 Cook County homes received a notice that their home was now foreclosed and scheduled for auction. Lastly , 2,035 Cook County homes were repossessed by lenders.
Overall, there was a whopping 42% increase in foreclosure activity between August 2011 and August 2012. Foreclosure activity increased nearly 30% in just one month, from July 2012. What does this mean? Expect an influx of foreclosures on the market in the coming months!
Over 90% of the homes receiving foreclosure notices last month were in the Chicago area. Of those homes, most were in Cook County. 4,842 Cook County homes received their first foreclosure notice last month. Another 2,210 Cook County homes received a notice that their home was now foreclosed and scheduled for auction. Lastly , 2,035 Cook County homes were repossessed by lenders.
Overall, there was a whopping 42% increase in foreclosure activity between August 2011 and August 2012. Foreclosure activity increased nearly 30% in just one month, from July 2012. What does this mean? Expect an influx of foreclosures on the market in the coming months!
Monday, September 17, 2012
Religious Use Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Religious Property Only
A recent case, Franciscan Communities v. Hamer, 2012 IL App (2d) 110431 (August 28, 2012) clarified that only the religious portion of a property, the owners of which are seeking to reduce taxes based on the religious use real estate tax exemption, qualifies for such an exemption.
The plaintiff in this case, Franciscan Communities, owns a retirement home in Lindenhurst, Lake County, Illinois. To live at this retirement community, an individual must pay an entrance fee (90% of which is refundable), coupled with a monthly service fee. In 2007, the entrance fees ranged from $127,596 to $332,608. The monthly fees ranged from $1,248 to $4,741. In 2007, the retirement home earned gross revenues of $17.4 million. The retirement home has a dedicated chapel. The plaintiff requested a religious use tax exemption in 2007and was denied. The denial eventually brought this matter before the appellate court.
The court found that while the retirement home certainly had a religious component, advancing religion was not the home's fundamental goal. Evidence showed that the retirement home engaged in marketing activities to induce more seniors to move in at market rates, thereby increasing revenues. The court affirmed that the Lake County Board of Review, the Illinois Department of Revenue, and the administrative law judge who heard the appeal were all correct in denying the religious use tax exemption, and that only the portion of the property actually used for religious purposes -- in this case, the chapel -- could benefit from the exemption.
The plaintiff in this case, Franciscan Communities, owns a retirement home in Lindenhurst, Lake County, Illinois. To live at this retirement community, an individual must pay an entrance fee (90% of which is refundable), coupled with a monthly service fee. In 2007, the entrance fees ranged from $127,596 to $332,608. The monthly fees ranged from $1,248 to $4,741. In 2007, the retirement home earned gross revenues of $17.4 million. The retirement home has a dedicated chapel. The plaintiff requested a religious use tax exemption in 2007and was denied. The denial eventually brought this matter before the appellate court.
The court found that while the retirement home certainly had a religious component, advancing religion was not the home's fundamental goal. Evidence showed that the retirement home engaged in marketing activities to induce more seniors to move in at market rates, thereby increasing revenues. The court affirmed that the Lake County Board of Review, the Illinois Department of Revenue, and the administrative law judge who heard the appeal were all correct in denying the religious use tax exemption, and that only the portion of the property actually used for religious purposes -- in this case, the chapel -- could benefit from the exemption.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Due Inquiry Necessary Prior to Serving Notice of Foreclosure via Publication
A recent case, Citimortgage, Inc. v. Cotton, 2012 IL App (1st) 102438 (August 28, 2012), highlights the important of proper service on the defendant mortgagor in a foreclosure case. Mr. Cotton was a City of Chicago fireman who had a loan with CitiMortgage on a five-unit residential building in Chicago. The building went into foreclosure, and the process server hired by the lender attempted service on Mr. Cotton ten times at the building. He later filed an affidavit that he had attempted service ten times and was unable to serve Mr. Cotton. The bank had an alternate address for Mr. Cotton as well, also at an apartment building. Another process server eventually filed an affidavit that he had attempted to serve Mr. Cotton nine times at the alternate address, and was unable to serve him there either. Citimortgage then obtained permission from the court to serve the defendant via publication, and published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Some time thereafter, the building was foreclosed.
Subsequently, Mr. Cotton filed a motion to vacate the judgment, but the trial court denied it. Mr. Cotton then appealed. Among other things, he claimed that service by publication should be quashed because prior to notice by publication, the plaintiff must conduct due inquiry. Mr. Cotton claimed that while the bank may have been diligent (assuming that they did in fact attempt to serve him 19 times), they did not conduct due inquiry and did not even use the information they had readily available to them when attempting to serve him. For example, they knew where he was employed, but they did not try to serve him there. They knew who his attorney was, but they did not attempt to contact his attorney either. Mr. Cotton also presented affidavits from his neighbors, as well as visual evidence, contradicting the process servers' affidavits that they had visited Mr. Cotton's two known addresses.
Based on the evidence presented by Mr. Cotton, the appellate court stated that the trial court should have allowed a hearing on whether service by publication was proper, and remanded the case.
The moral of the story depends on who you are: If you're a lender, make sure you conduct "due inquiry" prior to serving a mortgagor via publication. If you're a homeowner who is being or has been foreclosed, you may have some rights if service was not proper.
Subsequently, Mr. Cotton filed a motion to vacate the judgment, but the trial court denied it. Mr. Cotton then appealed. Among other things, he claimed that service by publication should be quashed because prior to notice by publication, the plaintiff must conduct due inquiry. Mr. Cotton claimed that while the bank may have been diligent (assuming that they did in fact attempt to serve him 19 times), they did not conduct due inquiry and did not even use the information they had readily available to them when attempting to serve him. For example, they knew where he was employed, but they did not try to serve him there. They knew who his attorney was, but they did not attempt to contact his attorney either. Mr. Cotton also presented affidavits from his neighbors, as well as visual evidence, contradicting the process servers' affidavits that they had visited Mr. Cotton's two known addresses.
Based on the evidence presented by Mr. Cotton, the appellate court stated that the trial court should have allowed a hearing on whether service by publication was proper, and remanded the case.
The moral of the story depends on who you are: If you're a lender, make sure you conduct "due inquiry" prior to serving a mortgagor via publication. If you're a homeowner who is being or has been foreclosed, you may have some rights if service was not proper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
