Option ARMs and Reverse Mortgages

BoA LogoToday’s Wall Street Journal featured a very interesting article on how Bank of America is using reverse mortgages to save senior borrowers. The cases include situations where Bank of America has taken a significant write down to allow the borrowers to stay in their homes.  But not all borrowers may receive the same treatment as the borrowers highlighted in the article. As the story notes, most borrowers who received the modified reverse mortgage had taken out option ARMs.

Option ARMs (Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages) have become “the new subprime mortgages,” leading many borrowers into foreclosure. 32% of option ARM borrowers were delinquent or in foreclosure last month, compared with 48% of subprime mortgage borrowers.  Unlike subprime mortgages, option ARM mortgages generally went to borrowers with good credit, including seniors with significant equity in their homes looking to refinance. The option ARMs have also proved difficult to modify, since the low interest rates on the loan often cannot be lowered any further.   Lawsuits have been filed by borrowers claiming they were misinformed of the loan’s complicated structure, which in many cases can lead payments to balloon after a few years.

As a result of the lawsuits, as well as the settlement of a suit against Countrywide, which was since acquired by Bank of America, Bank of America has agreed to modify option ARMs and subprime mortgages where possible.  While it appears that Bank of America has so far only issued about 20 reverse mortgages to borrowers with option ARMs, it looks like a good start to fixing a significant problem. Borrowers with option ARMs from Bank of America may want to talk to their servicer or the bank about a modification, perhaps with a reverse mortgage.

 

Countrywide Can Be Sued by Investors, Rules Federal Judge

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled yesterday that the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 did not exempt Countrywide from investor lawsuits. Countrywide had argued that the federal legislation automatically voided its pledge to buy back loans from investors if those loans were modified for troubled borrowers.  The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 was meant to help encourage servicing companies to modify loans, in part by providing some protection under liability arising from loan changes.

However, many of the mortgages owned by Countrywide (which has since been purchased by Bank of America), are owned by investors. The investors receive interests and principal payments from borrowers over the life of the loans. When the loans are modified, these payments are typically reduced. The investors are arguing that when Countrywide and Bank of America agreed to modify the loans, they breached their contract with the investors.

The ruling in the case said that the legislation did not prevent Countrywide’s investors from trying to enforce their rights under the mortgage servicing contracts. It would be up to the investors to prove that Countrywide’s pooling and servicing agreement requires it to repurchase the loans the bank modifies. The case would be in state court, outside of federal jurisdiction. Countrywide wanted the case to take place in federal court, due to the law being a federal law.

This case has some interesting implications.  Right now, the Obama Administration has made it their priority to modify mortgages for borrowers, attempting to help the over 13% of homeowners who are currently delinquent on their mortgages. However, this case shows that even if the servicing companies and lenders agree, other parties, such as investors and hedge funds, may object. Certaintly there are bound to be losers from the housing bust and subprime mortgage crisis- the question is who will bear the brunt of the blow. As individuals argue in their self interest, it appears dangerously likely that the good of the collective whole will suffer.