To All SLG Clients and Affiliates.
From: Spencer Scheer
Date: October 10, 2016
Client Alert: From the Scheer Law Group:
( Disclaimer): The following bulletin refers to legal issues subject to developing case law or regulatory oversight. In the event that you encounter issues covered in this bulletin, you should review the appropriate response with counsel experienced in this area of law and should update the status of any legislation, regulation or case law mentioned.. The intention of SLG is to give an overview of the subject covered and to highlight trends that are emerging, not to provide advice applicable to any particular case.
Subject: Rent Control/Eviction Control in Santa Rosa, effective 9.30.16.
The explosion in real property values and increasing scarcity of affordable rental housing is being reflected in the enactment of more rent control/eviction control ordinances. In 2015, Richmond CA enacted the first rent control/eviction control ordinance in almost 30 years. Now Santa Rosa. More are on the way.
General Recap of Santa Rosa Provisions. Rent cap is 3%. Rents rolled back to January 1, 2016 and rent increases tied to that date and max 3% a year increases thereafter. Rent cap and eviction control applies to units built before February 1995. Evictions for “just cause”, only.
Jon Seigel is the resident rent control expert at SLG. If you have questions, please call Jon.
You are always welcome to call me if you would like to discuss:
To All SLG Clients and Affiliates.
Date: July 21, 2016
From: Spencer Scheer ( Please see Email Alert From Jonathan Seigel below)
Subject: Client Alert: From the Scheer Law Group:
City of Oakland, CA seeks to Further Limit Landlord Rights via Increased Rent Control/Eviction Control Restrictions
The Oakland City Council has voted to amend the existing rent control ordinance and has approved a ballot measure to be voted on in November containing significant changes to the rent control ordinance. The rent control ordinance has been amended to require landlords to petition the Board for any rent increase exceeding 5% (currently, the burden is on tenants to file petitions opposing rent increases), to limit the amount of capital improvements that may be passed through to tenants, and to require owners of duplexes and triplexes to live in their buildings for two years before the buildings would become exempt from rent control.
The ballot measure would incorporate some of the amendments set forth above to the rent ordinance, thereby assuring that a future city council could not rescind the amendments, impose eviction controls on all units constructed before 1995 (currently, eviction controls are imposed only on units constructed before 1981), and require relocation payments to tenants where the landlord conducts an owner move in eviction.
Stay tuned for further developments.
Please call Jon Seigel of SLG if you would like to discuss
If you missed the SLG Webinar: California Foreclosure Review (Focus on Dodd-Frank Mortgage Servicing Rules), it is now available on the SLG website. A great tool to assist in preparation for the January 10, 2014 Compliance date.
TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE: THAT IS THE QUESTION. THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
By Spencer Scheer, Esq., Scheer Law Group, LLP
OVERVIEW: With the recent flood of consumer borrower lawsuits against lenders, establishing state or federal jurisdiction via removal and remand has becomea strategically important consideration that may often determine the direction and resolutionof the case. Counsel that fail to consider and plan for this may be doing their clients a big disservice.
LINK TO ARTICLE: To Remove or Not to Remove
To: All SLG Clients and Affiliates
Re: CLIENT ALERT: July 16, 2011
Note and Disclaimer: This is a general advisement. This is a new law. This area of law changes rapidly and new laws are introduced regularly on this subject. You should review any decision you make on the issues raised in this advisement with counsel experienced in this area of law.
SB 458 (Short Sale Anti-Deficiency Legislation): Passed as an urgency bill and approved by Governor Brown on July 11, 2011 and Chaptered by the Secretary of State on July 15, 2011 , amends CCP §580e.
Background: Lenders often question whether the acceptance of a short sale removes the rights to seek a deficiency or require a payment or other collateral as a condition of a short sale.
Prior legislation (SB 931 adding CA. Code of Civil Procedure § 580e (effective 1.1.11)), prohibited deficiency judgments by the senior lienor if there was a short sale that was approved by the senior. There was no definitive guidance on whether you could get a waiver from the borrower i.e. allow the short sale but reserve the right to a deficiency against the borrower or to take other collateral of the borrower (by either the senior or junior which allowed the sale). It was assumed that since SB 931 specifically referenced senior lienors only, that any junior that was entitled to a deficiency could seek one, unless the borrower obtained the waiver of the junior, as part of the short sale transaction. SB 458 seeks to resolve this issue by providing that if the senior and junior agree to the short sale, that is it. No “side payment” allowed, no waivers. Some people believe this may make it even harder to get short sales through in California, extending the housing crises for a longer period of time. I think so.
a. The Bill applies to 1-4 unit properties and to second mortgages too.
b. If a junior lienor approves the sale, it will have to write off anything that the senior does not allow to go to the junior.
c. Bill provisions do not apply if the borrower is a corporation, LLC, LP, or political subdivision of the state.
d. In essence, the acceptance of a short sale would be the equivalent of a full credit bid at foreclosure.
e. Fraud and waste claims are excluded.
f. The bill makes any waiver of the provisions void as against public policy.
i. Note the language in footnote two. It could be argued that there is no specific prohibition on obtaining a further note or promise to pay. However, the clear intent of the Bill is to prohibit such practices.
g. The bill is deemed “urgency legislation” and takes effect immediately when bill is enrolled
Contact: Spencer Scheer if you wish to discuss.
 The bill previously proposed extending existing anti deficiency protection re purchase money loans to include not only the original purchase money loan amount, but to clearly specify that the protection applies to refinances of that loan and also to any other proceeds used to improve the Property, using. 26 USCS § 163: B) to define “acquisition indebtedness, but this provision was removed by amendment as of May 1, 2011.
 The bill provides in pertinent part: “ A holder of a note shall not require the trustor, mortgagor, or maker of the note to pay any additional compensation, aside from the proceeds ofthe sale, in exchange for the written consent to the sale”,
North Los Angeles Chapter Dinner Meeting
Economic Outlook 2011
Event: New Challenges facing Credit Unions during the foreclosure process.
Date: April 19th 2011
Time: Registration and Networking at 6:00 PM Dinner at 6:30 PM
Location: Monterey Hill 3700 W. Ramona Blvd., Monterey Park, CA (323) 264-8400
PRESENTATION BY: Spencer Scheer, from the Scheer Law Group, LLP.
Mr. Scheer will be covering a number of issues facing the credit union industry including. Loan Workout Issues, Short Sales, Fraud & deficiency liability, Deed in lieu, Borrower Lawsuits challenging the foreclosure Process, Lender Litigation Issues and must more. A must attend meeting!!!
WHO SHOULD ATTEND: ***Collectors, Real Estate Personnel, Lending Officers, CEO’s and Senior Management Staff.***
For Reservations call Juanita Bankhead: (323) 550-2205 e-mail Jbankhead@lafirecu.org or email@example.com (818)949-5656
Event: Deeds in Lieu, Short Sales and Selected Non-Judicial foreclosure Issues
Date: April 19, 2011
Time: 6:00-8:30 PM
Location: California Credit Union Collectors Counsel-LA. Chapter-Burbank CA
Registration: Call SLG 415-491-8900
Presentation By: Spencer Scheer, from the Scheer Law Group, LLP
Event: In house seminar: Bankruptcy and FDCPA issues
Date: March 23, 2011
Time: 12:00 PM
Location: Patelco Credit Union, Pleasanton CA
Presentation By: Spencer Scheer, from the Scheer Law Group, LLP.
Event: Significant Developments in California Real Estate Practice
Date: March 3, 2011
Time: 12:00 PM
Location: Marin County Bar Association: Real Property Section
Registration: Call SLG 415-491-8900
Presentation By: Josh Scheer and Spencer Scheer, from the Scheer Law Group, LLP.
A little known result of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”) (Pub. L. 111-203, H.R. 4173, Section 14), was to extend and clarify the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA Act”), Pub. Law 11-22, 123 Stat. 1632, 1660 (2009).
In essence, the PFTA increased the eviction notice period for tenants to 90 days, and allowed any bona fide tenant, under a lease entered into prior to the notice of foreclosure, to occupy the property for the remaining term of the lease. Buried in the Act, are provisions which affected the PFTA, including:
- The Act extended the PFTA for two more years i.e. until December 31, 2014.
- The Act “clarified” the date that a lease could be entered into and still be deemed valid under PFTA. Under PFTA the start date for determining whether a lease was valid was determined by examining whether the lease was entered into prior to the “notice of foreclosure”. The Act now provides that the notice of foreclosure is the date complete title to a property is transferred, as a result of a court order or the provisions of a mortgage or deed of trust.
These provisions will effect your eviction rights if you foreclose on a covered loan. Count on seeing more suspect lease agreements that are targeted to allow continuing tenant rights after foreclosure. These changes, in conjunction with changes in the law imposing liability on lenders to maintain certain properties after foreclosing, highlight the need for Lenders to ensure that they inspect properties prior to foreclosure to determine exactly what post-foreclosure obligations they will be incurring.
Please call or email Scheer Law Group, LLP if you have any questions.