- Foreclosure Committee Meetings (2007 – 2024): The Foreclosure Committee, initially chaired by Judge Mintz, held regular meetings to review procedures and practices in foreclosure cases to ensure uniformity. The committee’s mission evolved over the years to adapt to changing legal frameworks, technological advancements, and economic conditions.
- Proposed Standing Orders: The committee consistently reviewed and proposed changes to standing orders to achieve uniformity in foreclosure procedures and keep costs down. These proposed changes were aimed at streamlining the foreclosure process and making it more efficient.
- Advertising Foreclosure Sales: A significant focus was placed on advertising foreclosure sales, with discussions on concepts such as advertising on the Judicial Branch Website. The committee aimed to enhance transparency and reach a wider audience through improved online platforms and digital marketing strategies.
- Future Topics and Subcommittee Formation: Over the years, the committee identified the need for further discussions on various issues, leading to the formation of subcommittees. These subcommittees tackled topics such as the amount of deposit by bidders at sale, advertising in newspapers, title search, committee fees, and the impact of bankruptcy filings on foreclosure procedures.
- Minutes of Previous Meetings: The document highlights the importance of maintaining detailed minutes of meetings to track the committee’s progress and decisions. These minutes covered topics such as the introduction of the Foreclosure Mediation Program and the review of proposed standing orders.
- Standing Orders for Foreclosure by Sale: Recommendations for changes to standing orders were made to address issues such as the appointment of a committee by the court, sale procedures, advertisement requirements, and the role of the committee in cases of bankruptcy filings.
- Foreclosure Mediation Program: The document briefly mentions the introduction and discussion of the Foreclosure Mediation Program, indicating the committee’s role in overseeing this initiative aimed at assisting homeowners facing foreclosure.
- Legislative Changes and Updates: The committee kept abreast of legislative changes and updates affecting foreclosure procedures, ensuring that their recommendations and practices were in line with current laws.
- Judicial Involvement: Judges played a crucial role in the committee, with notable figures such as Judge Mintz, Hon. Richard A. Robinson (now Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court), and other judges actively participating in meetings and discussions.
- Legal and Industry Representation: The committee included representatives from various legal and industry sectors, such as attorneys specializing in foreclosure law and representatives from financial institutions like Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
The Connecticut Foreclosure Bench-Bar Committee, a panel of judges, attorneys, and judicial branch employees, was tasked with addressing the challenges posed by the subprime mortgage crisis and its impact on foreclosure cases in Connecticut from 2007 to 2024. The committee’s agendas and minutes, compiled in a comprehensive PDF, provide a detailed account of their discussions, decisions, and actions during this critical period.
Chaired initially by Judge Mintz, the committee held regular meetings to review procedures and practices, aiming to ensure uniformity in foreclosure cases across the state. As the legal landscape evolved and new technologies emerged, the committee adapted to these changes to maintain its effectiveness.
One of the committee’s primary focuses was on proposing and reviewing changes to standing orders, with the goal of achieving greater efficiency and uniformity in foreclosure procedures. They also explored innovative ways to advertise foreclosure sales, such as utilizing the Judicial Branch Website, to enhance transparency and reach a wider audience.
Recognizing the need for in-depth discussions on various critical issues, the committee formed subcommittees to tackle specific topics, including bidder deposit amounts, newspaper advertising, title searches, committee fees, and the impact of bankruptcy filings on foreclosure proceedings.
The committee also introduced and discussed the Foreclosure Mediation Program, which aimed to assist homeowners facing foreclosure by providing a platform for negotiation and reaching agreeable solutions. They kept abreast of legislative changes affecting foreclosure procedures and ensured that their recommendations and practices aligned with current laws.
Notable judges, such as Judge Mintz and Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson, actively participated in meetings and discussions, providing valuable insights and guidance. The committee also included representatives from various legal and industry sectors, including attorneys specializing in foreclosure law and representatives from financial institutions, to ensure diverse perspectives and expertise.
However, the excerpts from the PDF raise concerning questions about potential conflicts of interest and the impartiality of the foreclosure process in Connecticut. Many litigants, defendants, and others believe that certain influential foreclosure mills, such as HUNT LEIBERT JACOBSON, P.C. (now MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE), Bendett & McHugh, P.C., and BROCK & SCOTT, have allegedly benefited from their close relationships with the Connecticut Judicial Branch.
These allegations, if substantiated, could undermine public trust and confidence in the judicial system and its ability to provide fair and unbiased outcomes in foreclosure cases. The recent announcement of Brock & Scott, PLLC’s acquisition of Bendett & McHugh, P.C. further emphasizes the consolidation of power among these default law practices in the New England states, raising additional concerns about the potential impact on homeowners facing foreclosure.
As the committee’s agendas and minutes provide valuable insights into their efforts to ensure fair and efficient handling of foreclosure cases, it is equally important to investigate and address any potential conflicts of interest or impropriety. Transparency, accountability, and a commitment to impartial justice must remain at the forefront of the Connecticut Foreclosure Bench-Bar Committee’s work to maintain the integrity of the foreclosure process and protect the rights of all parties involved.
Recent legislative efforts at both the federal and state levels are designed to restrict or outright ban large corporations, including hedge funds, from purchasing single-family homes. This initiative is a response to the escalating concerns regarding housing affordability and the increasing dominance of institutional investors in the residential real estate market. Currently, there is a perception that major banks, such as Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Bank of America N.A., Wilmington Savings Bank FSB (WSFS), and U.S. Bank Corp., along with large hedge funds like BlackRock Inc., Vanguard Group, and numerous others, are involved. These entities, along with complex multi-layer LLCs and many Delaware regisitered LLC’s and many statutory trusts established with numerous anonymous beneficiaries, are suspected of creating a secretive investors’ syndicate. Some allege that lawyers and judges involved in related court cases may also be investors, utilizing this intricate network of entities as a 1031 tax shelter for potential money laundering activities.
Federal Legislation
- End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023: Introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Representative Adam Smith of Washington, this bill seeks to prohibit hedge funds and similar entities from owning single-family homes in the U.S. It mandates that these entities divest their holdings over a ten-year period, with stiff tax penalties imposed during this phase-out. The proceeds from these penalties are intended for down-payment assistance for individuals buying homes from corporate owners[2][3].
- American Neighborhoods Protection Act: Proposed by Representatives Jeff Jackson and Alma Adams of North Carolina, this legislation would require corporate owners of more than 75 single-family homes to pay an annual fee of $10,000 per home. The collected fees would contribute to a housing trust fund, aiding down payment assistance for families[2].
State Legislation
- California Proposal: Aims to prevent large corporate landlords from expanding their rental portfolios, targeting the growth of corporate ownership in residential real estate[1].
- Nebraska Bill: Seeks to ban out-of-state corporations from buying single-family homes, addressing concerns over external investment and its impact on local housing markets[1].
Analysis and Criticism
Critics argue that these legislative efforts, while well-intentioned, may not effectively address the root causes of the housing affordability crisis. The focus, some suggest, should instead be on increasing the supply of homes through measures such as eliminating single-family zoning and subsidizing new construction of affordable housing units. There is also a debate on the potential negative consequences of such bans, including the impact on the development of new affordable housing units and the shift of home purchases from large to medium and small corporations without significantly altering the dynamics of the housing market[1].
Furthermore, a federal law aimed at eliminating anonymous business dealings, particularly in real estate, has been enacted. The Corporate Transparency Act, championed by Senator Marco Rubio, requires shell companies and LLCs to disclose their true owners. This law, effective from January 1, 2024, is designed to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and other illicit activities by making ownership information accessible to banks and the federal government[5].
In summary, while legislative efforts to limit corporate ownership of residential real estate are gaining momentum, their effectiveness and potential unintended consequences remain subjects of debate. The overarching goal is to improve housing affordability and accessibility for individual buyers, but achieving this requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the complex factors contributing to the housing crisis.
Citations:
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/darylfairweather/2024/03/05/ban-corporate-landlords-a-housing-crisis-solution-or-a-distraction/?sh=58d8c05f3703
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html
[3] https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/end-hedge-fund-control-american-homes-act-housing-institutional-buyers/
[4] https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent
[5] https://www.wmfe.org/housing-homelessness/2024-01-02/no-more-anonymous-shell-companies-buying-houses-a-landmark-rubio-law-to-go-into-effect
The Real Facts Unsealed 