California city looks to use 'eminent domain' to seize loans

  • Follow Business

SAN FRANCISCO — When the mayor of Rich­mond, Calif., and a gaggle of activists and homeowners showed up at the Wells Fargo Bank headquarters in downtown San Francisco this month, they were on a mission to speak with the bank’s chief executive.

Demonstrators at Wells Fargo headquarters in San Francisco call on the bank to drop a lawsuit against a city that aims to "seize" mortgages to aid homeowners.  ROHAN SMITH/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Demonstrators at Wells Fargo headquarters in San Francisco call on the bank to drop a lawsuit against a city that aims to "seize" mortgages to aid homeowners.

They wanted the bank to drop a lawsuit aimed at stopping Richmond’s first-in-the-nation plan to use the government’s constitutional power of eminent domain to “seize” hundreds of mortgages from Wells Fargo and other financial institutions.

As Mayor Gayle McLaugh­lin and the plan’s backers approached the bank building, security guards locked the doors. After a bank official told her there would be no meeting and that someone would call her later, she grabbed a bullhorn.

“I am absolutely not backing down,” McLaughlin said.

The banks have filed two lawsuits alleging that the plan is an illegal abuse of eminent domain, which allows governments to seize private property for public use – such as a house in the path of a new highway.

The banks argue the plan would “severely disrupt” the mortgage industry because many other cities would likely adopt the same program to help homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.

Richmond has sent out more than 600 offers but has not yet begun any eminent domain proceedings. Newark, N.J.; North Las Vegas, Nev.; El Monte, Calif.; and Seattle are considering similar plans, according to Wells Fargo’s lawsuit.

While the housing industry is recovering slowly, Richmond, a city of roughly 100,000 people, is in the middle of a housing crisis, as plummeting home values and rising crime has left many worried that an era of urban blight is upon them.

McLaughlin said cities are considering the program because they are desperate. Nearly half the mortgages in Richmond, for example, are “underwater,” with the owner owing more than the house is worth.

The plan is the brainchild of Cornell University law school professor Robert Hockett.

“The fact of the matter is that underwater loans do default at massive rates,” Hockett said. “Underwater loans are a major drag on the economic recovery. We have got to do something.”

Here’s how the plan works: Rich­mond, working with San Francisco-based Mort­gage Resolution Partners, offers $150,000 to buy a $300,000 bank loan on a house that is now worth $200,000 and in danger of foreclosure.

If the bank agrees, the city and the company obtain the loan. Richmond and the company then offer the homeowner a new loan of $190,000, which, if accepted, lowers the monthly payments and improves the owners’ chances of staying.

The company receives $4,500 for each completed sale and splits any additional profits with the city.

If the bank refuses to sell the loan to Richmond, then the city invokes its power of imminent domain and seizes the mortgage. It would then offer the bank a fair market value for the home.

Mortgage Resolution Part­ners puts up the money and promised to pay all of Rich­mond’s legal costs.

Federal regulators said eminent domain isn’t the answer. The Federal Housing Fi­nance Agency said plans to seize loans “present a clear threat to the safe and sound operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.”

Tim Cameron, a Washing­ton, D.C., lobbyist with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Asso­ciation, said pension funds, banks and other groups that made loans in Richmond stand to lose millions if the city’s plan is allowed.

He also predicted that cities using eminent domain will make lenders wary of doing business there.

“There’s a domino effect in play here,” he said.

Comments (4) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
gargoyle 08/26/13 - 08:39 pm
I feel silly for making sound

I feel silly for making sound fiscal decisions. If I'd have known would have borrowed much more on my home loan and waited till it went under. Expect another bailout of the banks if allowed by the courts, a shortsighted feel good waste the next generations future boondoggle.

corgimom 08/26/13 - 11:13 pm
Gargoyle, you and me both. I

Gargoyle, you and me both. I would've bought a much nicer home, mortgaged it to the hilt, and then said, "oops, can't make the payments" and they'd say, "Hey, no problem, let me cut the payment for you."

gargoyle 08/26/13 - 11:25 pm
Yes it is really just

Yes it is really just legalese for illegal seizure of private property. Remember Kelo v. City of New London made it possible unless nullified by State constitution. If a promise is made to pay more tax by one party the government can force the sale by the owner at the point of a gun . Nothing needed but a promise and vote by the proper elected official, not well thought out and a huge overreach IMHO.

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs