This information is straight from the House Committee on Financial Services, not rumor or third party information, this came straight from the committee this afternoon.
Today, the House Financial Services Committee unamimously passed H.R. 5017, the Rural Housing Preservation and Stabilization Act of 2010. This action clears the bill for consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives, which is expected to take up the bill as early as next week. The bill ensures the continuation of the USDA loan guarantee program.
Since the financial crisis has spiked consumer interest in this program, the number of loans made annually have tripled since 2006. With continued demand, the program was slated to have exhausted its funds within the next few days. The new bill would solve this problem by making the program self funded.
The bill, introduded by Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), will correct the original program shortfall by enabling the program to pay for itself. To pay for the program, lenders will pay up to a 4% fee on new home mortgages. As a result of that change, financing of the program will move from a combination of government funding and industry fees to a self-sustaining initiative.
The USDA program is designed to be a vital source of mortgage credit for people living the rural communities. The program aims to lower the costs of homeownership by giving rural area access to a home loan guarantee program for those with low to moderate income with good credit. These guarantees decrease the exposure of home lenders to defaults so that they will underwrite more mortgages. In 2009, loans made under the program averaged $112,000.
Once again, that was directly from the House Committee that is chaired by Congressman Barney Frank and the same committee that local Congressman Joe Donnelly is part of. This is just the first step, but thoughts are that this will pass through Congress.
Showing posts with label Lending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lending. Show all posts
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
FHA Relaxes Anti-Flipping Rule
This is something that has been rumored for a little while now. At some point, I anticipate the "90-day" rule to be reinstated.
Beginning Feb. 1, the Federal Housing Administration will provide mortgage insurance for some purchases in which the seller bought the property and held it for fewer than 90 days.
The agency is changing what is known as the “anti-flipping rule” to speed up sales of renovated homes in communities with too many bank-owned and foreclosed homes, says FHA Commissioner David H. Stevens.
Waiving the 90-day rule will encourage private investors to buy vacant properties, fix them up, and quickly sell them to buyers who will be eligible to buy them using FHA financing.
Source: Washington Post (01/30/2010)
Beginning Feb. 1, the Federal Housing Administration will provide mortgage insurance for some purchases in which the seller bought the property and held it for fewer than 90 days.
The agency is changing what is known as the “anti-flipping rule” to speed up sales of renovated homes in communities with too many bank-owned and foreclosed homes, says FHA Commissioner David H. Stevens.
Waiving the 90-day rule will encourage private investors to buy vacant properties, fix them up, and quickly sell them to buyers who will be eligible to buy them using FHA financing.
Source: Washington Post (01/30/2010)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Mortgage Modification Plan Falls Short
Here is an article from the AP about loan modifications:
Only 65,000 people – about 7 percent of those who applied – have successfully navigated President Obama’s plan to help borrowers who are in trouble, the Treasury Department said last week.
About 49,000, or 5 percent, have dropped out of the program because they don’t qualify. Most of the remainder are still waiting.
Bank of America, the largest company in the program, has completed fewer than 2 percent of the modifications for 200,000 borrowers who signed up. The most successful lenders include Ocwen Financial Corp. and Carrington Mortgage Services, which have modified loans for 40 percent of their enrolled borrowers.
Source: Associated Press, Alan Zibel (01/15/2010)
Only 65,000 people – about 7 percent of those who applied – have successfully navigated President Obama’s plan to help borrowers who are in trouble, the Treasury Department said last week.
About 49,000, or 5 percent, have dropped out of the program because they don’t qualify. Most of the remainder are still waiting.
Bank of America, the largest company in the program, has completed fewer than 2 percent of the modifications for 200,000 borrowers who signed up. The most successful lenders include Ocwen Financial Corp. and Carrington Mortgage Services, which have modified loans for 40 percent of their enrolled borrowers.
Source: Associated Press, Alan Zibel (01/15/2010)
Monday, December 21, 2009
RESPA, Why Is This Good For You?
Starting with the New Year, RESPA has been completely changed. What is RESPA you may ask?
RESPA is The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
Why should you care?
Because RESPA is what looks out for you, the consumer.
RESPA has kind of taken it on the chin a little bit over the past few years because consumers, like you, have complained that there was nobody looking out for them. And, to some degree, that was a correct assessment.
But, in January, all of that changes. RESPA had an overhaul. This overhaul has many lenders and title companies upset, it struck a nerve. That is how you can tell that this appears to be good legislation.
The changes all revolve around full up front disclosure. Nice huh?! How do they do this?
To start with, there is a massive over haul with the closing statement. Or what we REALTORs call a HUD-1. This new HUD-1 will now look the same no matter what bank, title company or closing agency is closing the transaction. By changing the HUD-1 closing statement and making it uniform, it will help on the full disclosure part.
The big changes though come on that full disclosure, which starts all of the way back at the "Good Faith Estimate". You see, this has been a problem for a while now. There was no accountability for a lender when giving you that first initial estimate of what it is going to cost you to get the loan for the house you are buying.
This initial Good Faith Estimate can only vary at closing by 10% or less. Now that may sound like a lot, but it really is not. A typical closing may have closing costs in the area of $4,800 which means a variance of only $480. This is where the new HUD-1 comes into play.
The new HUD-1 will show side by side what your good faith estimate was and what your actual amounts are. It also has to spell out everything that the title company is charging, which cannot vary in price either, which is causing some title companies to go to a flat fee per transaction charge. The new HUD-1 goes into way more detail that will even show you the yield spread that a mortgae broker is getting in profit from your transaction. Now that is disclosure!
Also, right on the new HUD-1, you will see what your monthly payment is and your interest rate. It will state whether or not you have an adjustable rate mortgage or a balloon payment or a pre-payment penalty. And, as usual, it will show what the REALOTRs are charging.
The only real variance of significance that can effect your closing costs are costs that you will be in control of, like inspection costs. Those are allowed to not be disclosed on the initial good faith estimate simply because there is no way to determine how much those are going to be until later in the process.
RESPA is The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
Why should you care?
Because RESPA is what looks out for you, the consumer.
RESPA has kind of taken it on the chin a little bit over the past few years because consumers, like you, have complained that there was nobody looking out for them. And, to some degree, that was a correct assessment.
But, in January, all of that changes. RESPA had an overhaul. This overhaul has many lenders and title companies upset, it struck a nerve. That is how you can tell that this appears to be good legislation.
The changes all revolve around full up front disclosure. Nice huh?! How do they do this?
To start with, there is a massive over haul with the closing statement. Or what we REALTORs call a HUD-1. This new HUD-1 will now look the same no matter what bank, title company or closing agency is closing the transaction. By changing the HUD-1 closing statement and making it uniform, it will help on the full disclosure part.
The big changes though come on that full disclosure, which starts all of the way back at the "Good Faith Estimate". You see, this has been a problem for a while now. There was no accountability for a lender when giving you that first initial estimate of what it is going to cost you to get the loan for the house you are buying.
This initial Good Faith Estimate can only vary at closing by 10% or less. Now that may sound like a lot, but it really is not. A typical closing may have closing costs in the area of $4,800 which means a variance of only $480. This is where the new HUD-1 comes into play.
The new HUD-1 will show side by side what your good faith estimate was and what your actual amounts are. It also has to spell out everything that the title company is charging, which cannot vary in price either, which is causing some title companies to go to a flat fee per transaction charge. The new HUD-1 goes into way more detail that will even show you the yield spread that a mortgae broker is getting in profit from your transaction. Now that is disclosure!
Also, right on the new HUD-1, you will see what your monthly payment is and your interest rate. It will state whether or not you have an adjustable rate mortgage or a balloon payment or a pre-payment penalty. And, as usual, it will show what the REALOTRs are charging.
The only real variance of significance that can effect your closing costs are costs that you will be in control of, like inspection costs. Those are allowed to not be disclosed on the initial good faith estimate simply because there is no way to determine how much those are going to be until later in the process.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Parents Should Consider Homes As Gifts
Parents who are looking for a gift to give their kids this holiday season should consider a house.
With prices in the cellar, this could be a terrific year to give a down payment or even the whole home.
The Internal Revenue Service says a married couple can each give gifts of $13,000 of money or property without triggering taxes for the gift givers or the recipients. That means a married couple can give another married couple a total of $52,000 a year. To maximize that they can give $52,000 in December and another $52,000 in January for a total of $104,000 to be used on a property before the federal tax credit expires.
This would buy a house in some parts of the country and be sufficient for a down payment in most others.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, June Fletcher (11/27/2009)
With prices in the cellar, this could be a terrific year to give a down payment or even the whole home.
The Internal Revenue Service says a married couple can each give gifts of $13,000 of money or property without triggering taxes for the gift givers or the recipients. That means a married couple can give another married couple a total of $52,000 a year. To maximize that they can give $52,000 in December and another $52,000 in January for a total of $104,000 to be used on a property before the federal tax credit expires.
This would buy a house in some parts of the country and be sufficient for a down payment in most others.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, June Fletcher (11/27/2009)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Homebuyer Tax Credit Extension and Changes
Today, in a vote of 403-12, the House passed a bill that the Senate had already passed that extends the Homebuyer Tax Credit and also makes some changes to the existing tax credit. Now, before I go ANY further, I need to throw out a disclaimer that President Obama still needs to sign this into law to make it official. Although that should just be a formality, it is in fact not law until he signs it. So, this is just to inform of what the bill is and what some of the changes are.
Ready? Here we go:
The proposed new law will extend the current first time buyer tax credit from November 30, 2009 to April 30, 2010. However, it only has to be under contract by April 30, 2010. It actually has to close by July 1, 2010. This will help out with short sales tremendously!
Also, current homeowners are now eligible for a tax credit upon purchasing a home, up to $6,500. The catch here is that existing homeowners have to have lived in their home for 5 of the last 8 years in order to qualify.
The proposed new law also extends the income limits. Under the old credit, maximum income for the full credit was $150,000 for a married couple. Under the new law, the maximum would be raised to $225,000 for a married couple. The maximum purchase price on a home is $800,000.
There is also a new anti-fraud rule where the purchaser must attach documentation of the purchase to the tax return.
First time home buyers are still considered someone who has not owned a home in at least 3 years.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me and I will do my best to answer any questions that you may have. My cell is 574-370-8156.
Ready? Here we go:
The proposed new law will extend the current first time buyer tax credit from November 30, 2009 to April 30, 2010. However, it only has to be under contract by April 30, 2010. It actually has to close by July 1, 2010. This will help out with short sales tremendously!
Also, current homeowners are now eligible for a tax credit upon purchasing a home, up to $6,500. The catch here is that existing homeowners have to have lived in their home for 5 of the last 8 years in order to qualify.
The proposed new law also extends the income limits. Under the old credit, maximum income for the full credit was $150,000 for a married couple. Under the new law, the maximum would be raised to $225,000 for a married couple. The maximum purchase price on a home is $800,000.
There is also a new anti-fraud rule where the purchaser must attach documentation of the purchase to the tax return.
First time home buyers are still considered someone who has not owned a home in at least 3 years.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me and I will do my best to answer any questions that you may have. My cell is 574-370-8156.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Full Credit Bid
I recently attended a continuing education class in Michigan and was taught some very interesting information about Foreclosure that goes against the common thought about having your house taken back by the bank. And, this applies to both Indiana and Michigan.
When your house is officially taken back by the bank is when it is sold at the Sheriff's auction. The bank does this by making a credit bid against your house. This "credit bid" is where things get interesting because of the belief out there about being sued for a deficiency judgement. The common belief, is that if you owed $100,000 and the bank takes your house back and sells it for $60,000, then the bank can sue you for a deficiency of $40,000. But that is not necessarily the true.
If the bank makes a "Full Credit Bid" on your home, then you owe nothing. A full credit bid is when you owe $100,000 and the bank makes a credit bid at, or above in most cases due to fees, the amount that is owed. This effectively negates the bank coming back on the homeowner for a deficiency judgement. Even if the house is then resold by the bank for $50,000 causing a $50,000 loss!
So, if you are in the process of having your house taken back by the bank, find out what the credit bid is on your house. This might relieve some anxiety about possible lawsuits.
When your house is officially taken back by the bank is when it is sold at the Sheriff's auction. The bank does this by making a credit bid against your house. This "credit bid" is where things get interesting because of the belief out there about being sued for a deficiency judgement. The common belief, is that if you owed $100,000 and the bank takes your house back and sells it for $60,000, then the bank can sue you for a deficiency of $40,000. But that is not necessarily the true.
If the bank makes a "Full Credit Bid" on your home, then you owe nothing. A full credit bid is when you owe $100,000 and the bank makes a credit bid at, or above in most cases due to fees, the amount that is owed. This effectively negates the bank coming back on the homeowner for a deficiency judgement. Even if the house is then resold by the bank for $50,000 causing a $50,000 loss!
So, if you are in the process of having your house taken back by the bank, find out what the credit bid is on your house. This might relieve some anxiety about possible lawsuits.
Friday, September 18, 2009
D.C. Dances Around Tax Credit Extension
I keep getting questions about the First Time Buyer Tax Credit and if it will be extended. Although I don't have an answer to that yet, I thought that you would be interested to read this article from the AP.
Washington is being forced to take a hard look at the expiring $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit.
Nearly a dozen bills have been proposed to extend the credit past the Nov. 30 deadline, but the top decision makers are just beginning to weigh in.
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed a six-month extension. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday that he hasn’t made a decision yet. And the White House economic team says it will make a recommendation to President Barack Obama by the end of Friday.
Extending the credit is a tough sell in some corners because so far the credit has cost an estimated $15 billion, twice what was projected last February.
Source: The Associated Press, Adrian Sainz (09/17/2009)
Washington is being forced to take a hard look at the expiring $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit.
Nearly a dozen bills have been proposed to extend the credit past the Nov. 30 deadline, but the top decision makers are just beginning to weigh in.
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed a six-month extension. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday that he hasn’t made a decision yet. And the White House economic team says it will make a recommendation to President Barack Obama by the end of Friday.
Extending the credit is a tough sell in some corners because so far the credit has cost an estimated $15 billion, twice what was projected last February.
Source: The Associated Press, Adrian Sainz (09/17/2009)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
"Making Home Affordable" Picking Up Steam
Here is a new article about how the "Making Home Affordable" plan starting to gain steam. About a month ago I posted an article on how it was failing. Although Bank Of America is still lowest on the list, it should be noted that in one month they went from 4% to the 7% that they are currently at:
The Obama administration's $50 billion "Making Home Affordable" mortgage relief plan is picking up steam, with 360,000 borrowers, or 12 percent of the eligible group, signing up for a three-month trial mortgage modification.
"There are signs the plan is working," says Michael Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions. "But we can do better."
Bank of America has enrolled about 7 percent of its 836,000 eligible loans, compared with 25 percent for JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Treasury Department’s decision to publish these numbers is driving the banks to do better. Lenders are "concerned about the report card showing them in a worse light than their peers," says David Stevens, assistant secretary for housing and FHA commissioner at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Nobody wants to be a low performer on that score card."
Source: The Associated Press, Alan Zibel (09/09/2009)
The Obama administration's $50 billion "Making Home Affordable" mortgage relief plan is picking up steam, with 360,000 borrowers, or 12 percent of the eligible group, signing up for a three-month trial mortgage modification.
"There are signs the plan is working," says Michael Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions. "But we can do better."
Bank of America has enrolled about 7 percent of its 836,000 eligible loans, compared with 25 percent for JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Treasury Department’s decision to publish these numbers is driving the banks to do better. Lenders are "concerned about the report card showing them in a worse light than their peers," says David Stevens, assistant secretary for housing and FHA commissioner at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Nobody wants to be a low performer on that score card."
Source: The Associated Press, Alan Zibel (09/09/2009)
Monday, August 24, 2009
Possible Tax Credit Extension.....And My Opinion
I just read that there are bills pending in both the House and the Senate to extend the first time home buyer credit of up to $8,000 which expires on November 30 of this year. If you want my opinion, then make sure to read to the end.
The Senate version, co sponsored by Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), would extend the tax credit to up to $15,000 and make any owner occupant home buyer eligible. Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), is in favor of extending the tax credit as it stands currently which is 10% of the purchase price up to $8,000 for first time buyers or someone who has not owned a home in at least 3 years.
The article that I read indicates that the most likely scenario is one where a tax credit would be the same as it stands currently at 10% of the purchase price up to $8,000, but open to all owner occupant buyers instead of just 1st time buyers.
My Opinion:
As a REALTOR, I have benefited from the 1st time tax buyer credit. It has infused into the market place of home buying, a number of 1st time buyers that may not have otherwise been buying thus keeping me busy selling houses both on the listing side and on the buyers side. Maybe we needed that first credit to stave off something much larger than what we have gone through....or maybe not.
But is this new tax credit really a good idea? Was it a good idea in the first place?
We just went through a "Housing Bubble" due to putting too many unqualified buyers into home ownership. By doing this, it created a housing demand. When demand is high, prices go up. But it was an artificial demand. Putting people into homes that should not have been able to buy a home is an artificial demand. Now we are dealing with a large default rate and a saturation of the market with all of these homes that have been defaulted on.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people that defaulted that were not in the sub-prime category. They defaulted because of rising unemployment, divorce, lack of good health care causing large medical bills....there are a lot of reasons why people default. But this mess started with the sub-prime loans.
With the sub-prime loans gone, unlike before, these new buyers are qualified buyers that probably moved up their timetable of buying to take advantage of the credit. But isn't the $8,000 credit just inflating the price again?
This "Crash" in the housing market that we are seeing, is the market adjusting itself from being over valued. If we offer $8,000 or $15,000, as one bill suggests, aren't we just inflating the market again? Causing a demand when there should not be a demand?
Why do I say "when there should not be a demand?". I know this person that is not in love with his house, he thinks his house is just ok, but he does not need to sell it. He is settled into it. If this tax credit for everyone goes into effect, especially the $15,000 credit, then his house is going up for sale and he will be building a new house somewhere. Who is this person? It is me. Isn't that artificially putting me into the market, when I had no intention on being in the market? Just because I may disagree with the government giving out this credit does not mean that I will not take advantage of it.....because I will, and others will too.
The other big question is: What is going to happen when this credit goes away? It seems to me that we just are putting off the inevitable of a really really slow real estate market. When you give people incentives like this, they grow to expect it. Just look at the car industry. For years and years, the only way American car makers have been able to sell cars is by giving huge rebates on their product-something that our government just found out with the "cash for clunkers" that brought a lot of buyers onto car lots. In the housing industry, we are in danger of creating the same type of mentality. Several times per week I am asked about a zero down or sub-prime mortgage as a way to buy a house. Most zero down and all sub-prime has been gone for almost 2 years and people are still asking for it. People are looking for the edge or the loop hole. Zero down does have a place, just not to those with poor credit. And it is typically those with poor credit that are asking for those programs.
So, what is my solution if there is no tax credit?......Smart and responsible lending programs that reward people with great credit but don't eliminate as many buyers that our current programs do. In my opinion, there is no reason why someone with an 800 credit score should not be able to buy with zero down if they would like to. I feel that someone with a moderate score, say in the 680 to 720 range, should be able to buy with very little down--like 2% down. Those with a 580 to 679 need to put 3.5% to 5% down. You reward those with the good credit with lower rates. I also feel that banks should allow closing costs to be wrapped up into the loan without a penalty in the interest rate and that down payment assistance programs were not necessarily a bad thing. I know this will not create the number of buyers that are out shopping because of the tax credit as there is right now, but is that a bad thing?
Lets use our tax dollars for giving health insurance for those in need of it. After all, it may very well be the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country which is something that we all pay for. Lets use our tax dollars to build the finest schools possible. If we do those 2 things, I think you will see far more wealth in this country. And if there is more wealth, there are more home buyers.......But that is just my opinion. And I know that this idea would not create a fast enough response in this "give me now" society that we live in. I know that this post will probably not be too popular with my fellow agents, but it is my opinion. And if the government passes a new tax credit, I will push the heck out of it because I need to make a living. But this blog was created in part to voice my opinion, which is what I have done. Feel free to let me hear yours by leaving a comment.
The Senate version, co sponsored by Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), would extend the tax credit to up to $15,000 and make any owner occupant home buyer eligible. Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), is in favor of extending the tax credit as it stands currently which is 10% of the purchase price up to $8,000 for first time buyers or someone who has not owned a home in at least 3 years.
The article that I read indicates that the most likely scenario is one where a tax credit would be the same as it stands currently at 10% of the purchase price up to $8,000, but open to all owner occupant buyers instead of just 1st time buyers.
My Opinion:
As a REALTOR, I have benefited from the 1st time tax buyer credit. It has infused into the market place of home buying, a number of 1st time buyers that may not have otherwise been buying thus keeping me busy selling houses both on the listing side and on the buyers side. Maybe we needed that first credit to stave off something much larger than what we have gone through....or maybe not.
But is this new tax credit really a good idea? Was it a good idea in the first place?
We just went through a "Housing Bubble" due to putting too many unqualified buyers into home ownership. By doing this, it created a housing demand. When demand is high, prices go up. But it was an artificial demand. Putting people into homes that should not have been able to buy a home is an artificial demand. Now we are dealing with a large default rate and a saturation of the market with all of these homes that have been defaulted on.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people that defaulted that were not in the sub-prime category. They defaulted because of rising unemployment, divorce, lack of good health care causing large medical bills....there are a lot of reasons why people default. But this mess started with the sub-prime loans.
With the sub-prime loans gone, unlike before, these new buyers are qualified buyers that probably moved up their timetable of buying to take advantage of the credit. But isn't the $8,000 credit just inflating the price again?
This "Crash" in the housing market that we are seeing, is the market adjusting itself from being over valued. If we offer $8,000 or $15,000, as one bill suggests, aren't we just inflating the market again? Causing a demand when there should not be a demand?
Why do I say "when there should not be a demand?". I know this person that is not in love with his house, he thinks his house is just ok, but he does not need to sell it. He is settled into it. If this tax credit for everyone goes into effect, especially the $15,000 credit, then his house is going up for sale and he will be building a new house somewhere. Who is this person? It is me. Isn't that artificially putting me into the market, when I had no intention on being in the market? Just because I may disagree with the government giving out this credit does not mean that I will not take advantage of it.....because I will, and others will too.
The other big question is: What is going to happen when this credit goes away? It seems to me that we just are putting off the inevitable of a really really slow real estate market. When you give people incentives like this, they grow to expect it. Just look at the car industry. For years and years, the only way American car makers have been able to sell cars is by giving huge rebates on their product-something that our government just found out with the "cash for clunkers" that brought a lot of buyers onto car lots. In the housing industry, we are in danger of creating the same type of mentality. Several times per week I am asked about a zero down or sub-prime mortgage as a way to buy a house. Most zero down and all sub-prime has been gone for almost 2 years and people are still asking for it. People are looking for the edge or the loop hole. Zero down does have a place, just not to those with poor credit. And it is typically those with poor credit that are asking for those programs.
So, what is my solution if there is no tax credit?......Smart and responsible lending programs that reward people with great credit but don't eliminate as many buyers that our current programs do. In my opinion, there is no reason why someone with an 800 credit score should not be able to buy with zero down if they would like to. I feel that someone with a moderate score, say in the 680 to 720 range, should be able to buy with very little down--like 2% down. Those with a 580 to 679 need to put 3.5% to 5% down. You reward those with the good credit with lower rates. I also feel that banks should allow closing costs to be wrapped up into the loan without a penalty in the interest rate and that down payment assistance programs were not necessarily a bad thing. I know this will not create the number of buyers that are out shopping because of the tax credit as there is right now, but is that a bad thing?
Lets use our tax dollars for giving health insurance for those in need of it. After all, it may very well be the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country which is something that we all pay for. Lets use our tax dollars to build the finest schools possible. If we do those 2 things, I think you will see far more wealth in this country. And if there is more wealth, there are more home buyers.......But that is just my opinion. And I know that this idea would not create a fast enough response in this "give me now" society that we live in. I know that this post will probably not be too popular with my fellow agents, but it is my opinion. And if the government passes a new tax credit, I will push the heck out of it because I need to make a living. But this blog was created in part to voice my opinion, which is what I have done. Feel free to let me hear yours by leaving a comment.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Facing Foreclosure? Experts Advise Action
Here is an article that I was fortunate to participate in again that was published on the front page of the South Bend Tribune today. The photo to the right was used by the tribune in the article.Homeowners can take steps to minimize fallout.
By KIM KILBRIDE
Tribune Staff Writer
Consumer advocates have a message for homeowners mired in foreclosure: Your situation is not hopeless.
Even if your house can't be saved, they say, there are steps you can take to lessen the fallout.
"When people see the foreclosure (notice) come to the door, they just give up," said Debra Voltz-Miller, an attorney in South Bend.
This, she said, is the time for homeowners to take action.
Those who call foreclosure-prevention hot lines, such as the one in Indiana, will be referred to local counselors who will serve as go-betweens for homeowners and lenders.
If nothing else, area experts say, homeowners should become their own advocates.
Call your lender and explain your situation, they say. Ask for a modification of the terms of your loan. And follow up to ensure the paperwork is received and your request is considered.
If you've already received a notice of foreclosure from the courts, respond to it in writing, advising that you're trying to work with your lender.
And finally, the experts say, do not pay in advance for the services of a for-profit "foreclosure-rescue" company.
What's new in Indiana?
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced recently a new collaborative foreclosure-prevention effort among multiple state agencies.
Part of the initiative is to train attorneys across the state to assist homeowners — for free — in dealing with and preventing foreclosure.
And new foreclosure-related laws have been enacted, said Judy Fox, an attorney who teaches at the Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Notre Dame.
One piece of the new legislation, she said, is a requirement that lenders give homeowners a 30-day notice before filing foreclosure.
The other new part, Fox said, is that homeowners — beginning July 1 — now have the option of taking part in a settlement conference with their lenders.
The conference offers the opportunity for the borrower and lender to settle on new loan terms, though there is no absolute requirement for the lender to make concessions, Fox said.
At the meeting, the borrower can bring a representative and though the law is ambiguous, she said, she would argue it requires the person at the conference representing the lender to have the authority to settle with the borrower.
The settlement conferences, Voltz-Miller hopes, will be able to help slow down the foreclosure problem in the state.
"If the lender and the homeowner go in (to the conference) in good faith," she said, "I think it has the potential to stop a lot of foreclosures.
"If a homeowner doesn't have a job or any monetary resources, she said, the outcome will undoubtedly be worse, though perhaps not completely unworkable.
No settlement
If a home can't be saved, Voltz-Miller said, the homeowner and lender might be able to negotiate a deed in lieu.
Essentially, the homeowner would turn over the home voluntarily, and would avoid having a foreclosure on their record. Since the ownership of the home would be transferred to the lender, the homeowner also would no longer be responsible for keeping the house up to code, she said.
But if the house is worth less than what's owed on it, a deed in lieu may not be possible.
Fox said lenders may sometimes hold the homeowner responsible after foreclosure for deficiency balances, the amount he or she owes that's above and beyond what the house can be sold for.
At the settlement conference, she said, homeowners may be able to negotiate that amount with the lender.
Also, she said, homeowners may be able to arrange a move-out date that better fits their needs.
"Saving your home is number one," Fox said, "but (if that isn't an option) it's still a good idea to go to the settlement conference.
"Voltz-Miller acknowledged the new laws won't completely solve the foreclosure issue.
"But, we've got to start somewhere. If we don't stem this problem, it'll snowball," affecting the county's tax base, and residents' quality of life, among other things. "It's this vicious circle," she said.
Another option homeowners in foreclosure might consider is trying to sell their homes via a short sale.
Barry Skalski, with Prudential One Realty, specializes in short sales.
A short sale is when the lender agrees to accept an offer on a home that's less than what the current owner owes on it.
Short sales are a way of helping homeowners avoid foreclosure, he said, though selling a home via a short sale does affect a person's credit record for two years.
Also important to note, he said, is that the shortage must be reported to the IRS as income for the homeowner. But, he said, a law was enacted that says any tax liability on that income will be forgiven through the end of this year.
Good candidates for a short sale, he said, include those who are out of work and have no prospects for employment; people who have relocated for their jobs; and homeowners who care about their credit and the neighborhoods they're leaving behind.
Homes in limbo
Fox said she's dismayed by the number of homes in the area that are sitting empty with seemingly no action being taken to formally foreclose on them and get them on the market.
There are a couple of scenarios playing out, she said.
Banks are foreclosing on properties, but are not bringing them to sheriff's sale.
In Indiana, she said, homeowners should know they're allowed to stay in their homes until the sheriff's sale has been completed.
Also, she said, "We're hearing from some banks that the housing market is too depressed. They're not filing foreclosure.
"In this situation, she said, homeowners often move out thinking the foreclosure is complete or will be completed.
Another problem is that some lenders are writing off loan balances for homeowners who have been in foreclosure.
"Consumers think they have a free house," she said, "but they don't."
The debt could be sold to a third party who could seek payment from the homeowner later. Plus, she said, there still would be a lien on the property, which means the homeowner could not sell it.
Homeowners in this situation, she said, should try to keep making payments.
Two local banks and one branch office of a national bank were contacted for this story. Two of them would not go on the record and the third did not return a phone call.
Fox, meanwhile, is not alone in noticing the number of homes in the area that seem to be in limbo.
Among other responsibilities, Jessie Whittaker, director of the LEND Homeownership Center with the South Bend Heritage Foundation, is currently trying to identify five homes in specific areas of the city that have been abandoned or foreclosed on for potential rehabilitation.
Driving around those areas on the west side of South Bend, she said, it's been difficult to find five homes that are suitable, not because there aren't enough abandoned homes but because there are too many.
"We've got to know that when we rehab it, someone is going to buy it," she said.
And one rehabbed home sitting among five or six that are boarded up is not going to look very appealing to a buyer.
So, she's considering recommending the organization buy, with special grant money that's available, all five homes on the same block.
"Maybe that'll have an impact," she said.
Staff writer Kim Kilbride:
kkilbride@sbtinfo.com
(574) 247-7759
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Banks Express Hope for Fed Short-Sale Effort
Here is an article out of the USA Today:
The federal government is launching a program to simplify and speed up the short-sale process by providing standardized documentation, cash incentives to lenders, and a $1,500 moving allowance to borrowers. Holders of second liens will get up to $1,000 to relinquish their claims.
Banks say the short-sale process has been taking so long because both their employees and real estate practitioners are learning as they go.
David Sunlin, vice president in charge of short sales at Bank of America, says he hopes the new government plan will help. "About half of short sales never close. We see it as a big lost opportunity, and we need to improve the rate we close them," he says.
Wells Fargo says it has cut its short sale average turnaround time from 90 days to 30 days by preparing a guide from real estate practitioners and putting in place procedures to handle short-sale requests.
Source: USA Today, Stephanie Armour (08/05/2009)
The federal government is launching a program to simplify and speed up the short-sale process by providing standardized documentation, cash incentives to lenders, and a $1,500 moving allowance to borrowers. Holders of second liens will get up to $1,000 to relinquish their claims.
Banks say the short-sale process has been taking so long because both their employees and real estate practitioners are learning as they go.
David Sunlin, vice president in charge of short sales at Bank of America, says he hopes the new government plan will help. "About half of short sales never close. We see it as a big lost opportunity, and we need to improve the rate we close them," he says.
Wells Fargo says it has cut its short sale average turnaround time from 90 days to 30 days by preparing a guide from real estate practitioners and putting in place procedures to handle short-sale requests.
Source: USA Today, Stephanie Armour (08/05/2009)
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Feds Scold BofA, Wells Fargo on Loan Modifications
Here is a story that I got from the AP. It is my experience that this article is dead on accurate:
The Treasury Department on Tuesday announced that only 9 percent of eligible home owners had been helped by the federal program to modify home loans and prevent foreclosure.
It scolded banking giants Bank of America and Wells Fargo, both of which received federal bailout money, pointing out that these banks have been among the least willing to assist troubled borrowers.
Bank of American modified 4 percent of eligible loans, and Wells Fargo modified 6 percent.
Big banks that did better included JPMorgan Chase & Co., which modified 20 percent of eligible loans, and Citigroup Inc., which modified 15 percent.
The bank with the best results was Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., which helped about 25 percent of its eligible borrowers.
Source: The Associated Press, Alan Zibel (08/04/2009)
The Treasury Department on Tuesday announced that only 9 percent of eligible home owners had been helped by the federal program to modify home loans and prevent foreclosure.
It scolded banking giants Bank of America and Wells Fargo, both of which received federal bailout money, pointing out that these banks have been among the least willing to assist troubled borrowers.
Bank of American modified 4 percent of eligible loans, and Wells Fargo modified 6 percent.
Big banks that did better included JPMorgan Chase & Co., which modified 20 percent of eligible loans, and Citigroup Inc., which modified 15 percent.
The bank with the best results was Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., which helped about 25 percent of its eligible borrowers.
Source: The Associated Press, Alan Zibel (08/04/2009)
FHA Drops Lender on Suspicion of Fraud
This is a pretty big deal of a story that just broke. What it means, is that the 3rd largest FHA lender can no longer do FHA loans effective immediately, even if there is a FHA loan is progress. Locally, Mutual Bank is the biggest lender that is effected by this.
The FHA's third-biggest lender, Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp., has been dropped from the agency's loan program due to possible fraud.
An independent auditor found "irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud," but FHA said the Florida-based firm failed to file a mandatory annual financial report and indicated that there were no outstanding issues related to the audit.
Experts say it could fold as a result; and with less competition in the industry, mortgage rates could rise.
"It's just a question of demand and supply," stated Equity Now Inc. President Michael Moskowitz. "If Taylor Bean goes down, it's a pretty big deal."
Source: Bloomberg David Mildenberg and Jody Shenn (08/05/09)
The FHA's third-biggest lender, Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp., has been dropped from the agency's loan program due to possible fraud.
An independent auditor found "irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud," but FHA said the Florida-based firm failed to file a mandatory annual financial report and indicated that there were no outstanding issues related to the audit.
Experts say it could fold as a result; and with less competition in the industry, mortgage rates could rise.
"It's just a question of demand and supply," stated Equity Now Inc. President Michael Moskowitz. "If Taylor Bean goes down, it's a pretty big deal."
Source: Bloomberg David Mildenberg and Jody Shenn (08/05/09)
Friday, July 31, 2009
FHA Program To Help Stuggling Home Owners
Here is a press release from the National Association of REALTORS today about the FHA Making Home Affordable Loan Modification Program:
The newly enhanced FHA Making Home Affordable Loan Modification Program will help struggling home owners—who qualify—to significantly reduce their monthly mortgage payments and stay in their homes, said NAR President Charles McMillan in a public statement.
The changes expand the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable Loan Modification Program to include FHA borrowers. NAR is optimistic that this will have positive implications for thousands of home owners, McMillan said.
“Until foreclosures have been significantly reduced and housing inventory reaches a more normal level, there can be no true housing recovery," McMillan said. "The FHA–HAMP program will go a long way in achieving these important goals by helping FHA servicers bring mortgages current, buy down loans by up to 30 percent of the unpaid principal balance, and defer these amounts until the first mortgage is paid off."
NAR will continue to call on Congress and the Obama administration to expand the first-time home buyer tax credit to all home buyers and continue efforts to streamline the short-sale process.
"Along with the expanded loan modification program, addressing these issues will help reduce foreclosures and housing inventory, and stabilize home values," McMillan said.
Source: NAR
The newly enhanced FHA Making Home Affordable Loan Modification Program will help struggling home owners—who qualify—to significantly reduce their monthly mortgage payments and stay in their homes, said NAR President Charles McMillan in a public statement.
The changes expand the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable Loan Modification Program to include FHA borrowers. NAR is optimistic that this will have positive implications for thousands of home owners, McMillan said.
“Until foreclosures have been significantly reduced and housing inventory reaches a more normal level, there can be no true housing recovery," McMillan said. "The FHA–HAMP program will go a long way in achieving these important goals by helping FHA servicers bring mortgages current, buy down loans by up to 30 percent of the unpaid principal balance, and defer these amounts until the first mortgage is paid off."
NAR will continue to call on Congress and the Obama administration to expand the first-time home buyer tax credit to all home buyers and continue efforts to streamline the short-sale process.
"Along with the expanded loan modification program, addressing these issues will help reduce foreclosures and housing inventory, and stabilize home values," McMillan said.
Source: NAR
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA)
Surprisingly, I have heard little out of the real estate community about the upcoming changes that are taking place on July 30 in regards to lending practices. This makes me a little nervous that Realtors and Lenders will not be prepared for the upcoming changes, causing confusion and frustration between Realtors, lenders, buyers and sellers. The changes, in my opinion, will create 45 -60 day closings for a while until processes are understood and implemented. Which is why, in the intial stages of this, when I write up an offer for a buyer or get an offer on a property that I have listed, I will be insisting on at least a 45 day close.
In the past, Lenders were able to collect up front fees from the buyers. These fees were mostly to cover the cost of the credit report and for the cost of the appraisal. In doing this, the lender was able to order the appraisal right away which sped up the process of getting the loan processed quickly.
With the new laws, lenders will still be able to collect the upfront fee for the credit report, but will no longer be able to collect the upfront fee for the appraisal. The reason for this, is that the new law dictates that the buyer must recieve their disclosures for the loan for review. These disclosures have always been sent out in the past, but by the time the buyer had them to review them, the appraisal may have already been ordered which could make the buyer more apt to feel obligated on going on with the loan even if they disagreed with the terms. The new law says that the appraisal fee can be collected 1 day after the buyer has received the overnight package containing the terms to be reviewed. This is meant to give the buyer more of an opportunity to ask questions before preceeding. The effect of this could be about a 5-7 day delay from how the loan was processed in the past.
The other really big change is in the Truth In Lending Dislclosure which is referred to as a TIL in the industry. The TIL will be given out at the begining of the process and again at the end of the process, which was done before as well. The TIL will reflect the lender fees that are involved with your loan so that you know exactly what you are being charged for by the lender. These "Fees" that are listed is figured into your Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for your loan. The more fees and such that are added into your loan, the higher the APR will be from the loan percentage rate that you have. An example would be that the interest rate of your loan may be 6% but the APR might show 6.375% because of the fees that are added in. The APR will always be higher then the percentage rate of the loan.
The big change in this TIL comes near the end of the transaction. In the past, the buyer may not see a new TIL until they get to the closing table. Since the first TIL you recieve usually is not the most accurate, the closing TIL will differ usually from the 1st one that you see. This can be a shock to buyers. Starting July 30, the new law says that the buyer MUST have at least 3 days to review the new TIL before closing if the new TIL will be .125% different then the first TIL. Which it most certainly will be. So, this change will cause at least a 3 day delay over the past way of closing loans. Basically meaning that the closing will be done and ready and sitting there for at least 3 days before we close on the house.
When you add up those changes, it results in a 7-14 day delay in closing over how things were done in the past. With the current economic climate we are in where everyone has cut back on staffing, 30 -45 day closings are very common right now before these laws take effect. That is why, for the time being, the new typical closing time will probably be 45-60 days.
In the past, Lenders were able to collect up front fees from the buyers. These fees were mostly to cover the cost of the credit report and for the cost of the appraisal. In doing this, the lender was able to order the appraisal right away which sped up the process of getting the loan processed quickly.
With the new laws, lenders will still be able to collect the upfront fee for the credit report, but will no longer be able to collect the upfront fee for the appraisal. The reason for this, is that the new law dictates that the buyer must recieve their disclosures for the loan for review. These disclosures have always been sent out in the past, but by the time the buyer had them to review them, the appraisal may have already been ordered which could make the buyer more apt to feel obligated on going on with the loan even if they disagreed with the terms. The new law says that the appraisal fee can be collected 1 day after the buyer has received the overnight package containing the terms to be reviewed. This is meant to give the buyer more of an opportunity to ask questions before preceeding. The effect of this could be about a 5-7 day delay from how the loan was processed in the past.
The other really big change is in the Truth In Lending Dislclosure which is referred to as a TIL in the industry. The TIL will be given out at the begining of the process and again at the end of the process, which was done before as well. The TIL will reflect the lender fees that are involved with your loan so that you know exactly what you are being charged for by the lender. These "Fees" that are listed is figured into your Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for your loan. The more fees and such that are added into your loan, the higher the APR will be from the loan percentage rate that you have. An example would be that the interest rate of your loan may be 6% but the APR might show 6.375% because of the fees that are added in. The APR will always be higher then the percentage rate of the loan.
The big change in this TIL comes near the end of the transaction. In the past, the buyer may not see a new TIL until they get to the closing table. Since the first TIL you recieve usually is not the most accurate, the closing TIL will differ usually from the 1st one that you see. This can be a shock to buyers. Starting July 30, the new law says that the buyer MUST have at least 3 days to review the new TIL before closing if the new TIL will be .125% different then the first TIL. Which it most certainly will be. So, this change will cause at least a 3 day delay over the past way of closing loans. Basically meaning that the closing will be done and ready and sitting there for at least 3 days before we close on the house.
When you add up those changes, it results in a 7-14 day delay in closing over how things were done in the past. With the current economic climate we are in where everyone has cut back on staffing, 30 -45 day closings are very common right now before these laws take effect. That is why, for the time being, the new typical closing time will probably be 45-60 days.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Mortgage Fraud Continues To Increase
Here is an article from the AP about the continuing problem of Mortgage Fraud. This is going to continue to be a problem, in my opinion, as people are getting more desperate with the poor economy and finding new ways to scam people. There is a lot of scamming going on right now with the loan modification aspect of mortgages:
Mortgage fraud continues to increase as vulnerable homeowners seek answers to their housing issues, according to the 2008 Mortgage Fraud Report released Tuesday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Reported losses to fraud hit $1.4 billion, up 83 percent compared to 2007 and are likely to climb even higher in 2009, the FBI said.
The number of fraud reports was 63,713 in fiscal 2008, up from 46,717 the previous year.
"The downward trend in the housing market during 2008 provided a favorable climate for mortgage fraud schemes to proliferate," the report said. "Several of these schemes have the potential to spread if the current economic downward trend, as expected, continues into 2009 and beyond."
Source: The Associated Press (07/08/2009)
Mortgage fraud continues to increase as vulnerable homeowners seek answers to their housing issues, according to the 2008 Mortgage Fraud Report released Tuesday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Reported losses to fraud hit $1.4 billion, up 83 percent compared to 2007 and are likely to climb even higher in 2009, the FBI said.
The number of fraud reports was 63,713 in fiscal 2008, up from 46,717 the previous year.
"The downward trend in the housing market during 2008 provided a favorable climate for mortgage fraud schemes to proliferate," the report said. "Several of these schemes have the potential to spread if the current economic downward trend, as expected, continues into 2009 and beyond."
Source: The Associated Press (07/08/2009)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Borrowers Struggle To Get Help
Here is an article from the USA Today that I thought you might find interesting about "Loan Modifications". In my recent experience with the governments loan modification program, I find this article to be very accurate in that most people are having a hard time getting their modifications approved.
Getting help through the Obama administration’s mortgage-assistance program has been an impossible challenge for thousands of applicants.
Home owners who apply for mortgage modifications can expect to wait 45 to 60 days before hearing anything from their mortgage service company, according to a report from foreclosure-prevention counselor NeighborWorks America.
Here is some other basic information:
The refinancing option is available only for certain loans owned or securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Home owners should contact their lender to see if they're eligible. Borrowers who are delinquent on their mortgage will not qualify.
To be eligible for a modification, borrowers must live in their property and be able to pay the mortgage after the modification. The first mortgage may not exceed 105 percent of the current market value of the property. The unpaid principal balance must be equal to or less than $729,750 for one-unit properties. The loan must have originated before Jan. 1, 2009. A borrower must have a payment (including taxes, insurance and homeowners association dues) that is more than 31 percent of the borrower's gross monthly income.
Consumers can find more information about these programs at FinancialStability.gov.
Source: USA Today (06/19/2009)
Getting help through the Obama administration’s mortgage-assistance program has been an impossible challenge for thousands of applicants.
Home owners who apply for mortgage modifications can expect to wait 45 to 60 days before hearing anything from their mortgage service company, according to a report from foreclosure-prevention counselor NeighborWorks America.
Here is some other basic information:
The refinancing option is available only for certain loans owned or securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Home owners should contact their lender to see if they're eligible. Borrowers who are delinquent on their mortgage will not qualify.
To be eligible for a modification, borrowers must live in their property and be able to pay the mortgage after the modification. The first mortgage may not exceed 105 percent of the current market value of the property. The unpaid principal balance must be equal to or less than $729,750 for one-unit properties. The loan must have originated before Jan. 1, 2009. A borrower must have a payment (including taxes, insurance and homeowners association dues) that is more than 31 percent of the borrower's gross monthly income.
Consumers can find more information about these programs at FinancialStability.gov.
Source: USA Today (06/19/2009)
Monday, May 11, 2009
Fannie May Needs More Money From Treasury
Fannie Mae told the U.S. Treasury on Friday that it will need another $19 billion to offset a loss of $23.17 billion in the first quarter, as the company continues to be battered by mortgage defaults, The Wall Street Journal reports.
This demand for capital will bring the amount provided Fannie to about $34 billion; the Treasury has agreed to provide as much as $200 billion to Fannie and to Freddie Mac. Freddie, which will report its results in a few days, has already received $45 billion.
Both companies, which were taken over by the government, buy home loans from banks and turn them into securities for sale to other investors. They are suffering losses because they focus on the weakest segments of the housing market.
Alt-A loans, many of which allowed borrowers to avoid documenting their income, accounted for 39 percent of Fannie’s credit losses in the latest quarter.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty (05/09/2009)
This demand for capital will bring the amount provided Fannie to about $34 billion; the Treasury has agreed to provide as much as $200 billion to Fannie and to Freddie Mac. Freddie, which will report its results in a few days, has already received $45 billion.
Both companies, which were taken over by the government, buy home loans from banks and turn them into securities for sale to other investors. They are suffering losses because they focus on the weakest segments of the housing market.
Alt-A loans, many of which allowed borrowers to avoid documenting their income, accounted for 39 percent of Fannie’s credit losses in the latest quarter.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty (05/09/2009)
Monday, May 4, 2009
New Indiana Foreclosure Bill
A new bill that has been unanimously passed by both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly is just waiting for Gov. Mitch Daniels to sign off on it. Once implemented, mortgage lenders trying to foreclose on a home in the state of Indiana will have to meet with delinquent home owners in order to try to modify loan terms before foreclosing on the property at sheriff's auction.
During the face to face meeting, lenders will be required to inform the property owner where they can find certified foreclosure prevention counseling and off the opportunity to engage in a settlement conference with the borrower. The lender representative does not have to have the power to authorize on the spot modified terms, but there must be someone available by telephone that does have that power. Also, the bill does NOT mandate that the lender must modify the loan.
The purpose behind the bill is to create more dialogue between the homeowner and the lender. It is estimated that there will be a need for about 700 people to perform these face to face meetings statewide. There has been no time table announced for when this would take effect once Gov. Daniels signs the bill into law.
During the face to face meeting, lenders will be required to inform the property owner where they can find certified foreclosure prevention counseling and off the opportunity to engage in a settlement conference with the borrower. The lender representative does not have to have the power to authorize on the spot modified terms, but there must be someone available by telephone that does have that power. Also, the bill does NOT mandate that the lender must modify the loan.
The purpose behind the bill is to create more dialogue between the homeowner and the lender. It is estimated that there will be a need for about 700 people to perform these face to face meetings statewide. There has been no time table announced for when this would take effect once Gov. Daniels signs the bill into law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
