BANKING AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION HEARING THIS IS OUR.
FIRST HEARING OF THE YEAR I AND.
IT
FOURTH IS A SIGNIFICANT DAY.
IT HERE TODAY NOT BECAUSE IT'S
MY FIRST DAY CHAIRING BUT IT'S
THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY.
.
OF THE ASSASSINATION REGARD THE
MARTIN LUTHER KING SO BEFORE WE
START ARE CONDUCTING BUSINESS.
DOCTOR KING WAS A STRONG
ADVOCATE FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE
ART ASKED THAT WE JUST HAVE A
MOMENT SILENCE.
THANK YOU.
I NEED TO SEE A TIME WHERE WITH
OUT A QUORUM SO WE'RE GOING TO
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE WE HAVE
THREE ISSUES TODAY TOUR WHICH
ARE ON CONSENT.
ONE BILL THAT WERE BE HEARING.
TODAY IS.
SP EIGHT EIGHTEEN BY SENATOR
BAIL HE'S HERE STILL SENATOR
WHEN YOU'RE READY YOU MAY BEGIN.
TO GO.
CHAIRMAN AND.
.
SIR VICE CHAIRMAN.
.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS BILL
S. B..
IT ONE EIGHT.
THIS IS.
.
CALIFORNIA.
HOMEOWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL
THE EXTENSION.
IS MANY OF YOU ARE NO.
THE CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER'S BILL
OF RIGHTS WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY
GOVERNOR BROWN IN TWENTY TWELVE
AND MANY VIEW.
WERE HERE WHEN THAT TOOK PLACE
OTHER OTHER MEMBERS.
WE SHOULD NOT FORGET WHAT TIME
IT.
WHAT THAT TIME WAS LIKE REALLY?
MANY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS IN
NEIGHBORHOODS
STILL HAVE NOT RECOVERED FROM.
OF THOSE THOSE DAYS.
HOMEOWNER BILLS A RIGHTS WAS NOT
JUST A RESPONSE TO THE ECONOMIC
CRISIS THAT TOOK PLACE.
IT WAS A RESPONSE TO UNFAIR
MORTGAGE SERVICING THAT MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR STRUGGLING
HOMEOWNERS TO GET HELP.
THESE LAWS.
THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED A
COMMONSENSE PROTECTIONS
INFORMATION AND NOTIFICATIONS.
A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
REVIEWED FOR ASSISTANCE
BEFORE FORECLOSURE. AT WAY TO
GET A SERVICES ERRORS CORRECTED.
AND A CONSISTENT POINT OF
CONTACT FOR THE SERVERS AT THE
SERVICER. THESE LAWS GAVE
HOMEOWNERS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO
POSTPONE A FORECLOSURE IF THE
SERVICER FAILED TO FOLLOW THE
RULES.
THESE LAWS WORKED.
THE LEGISLATURE SPENT THREE
YEARS TRYING TO PASS THE
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR
HOMEOWNERS FACING ON FOR CLOTHES
FORECLOSURES. THE BILL'S HEAD
POWERFUL AND WEALTHY OPPONENTS.
DURING THAT TIME HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS.
ACTUALLY LOST THEIR HOMES.
IN THE LONG FIGHT TO PROTECT.
PASSED LEGISLATION. THE FIVE
YEAR SUNSET WERE ADDED TO THE
HOME A REAL BILL IS RIGHTS.
THE OPPONENTS NOW SUGGESTED THE
SENSUOUS WERE UNIQUE.
THEY CLAIM THAT THOSE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT PLEASE
VISIT THEM.
AND YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM
SENATOR MARK LENO.
THE AUTHOR OF SB NINE HUNDRED.
THE RICH O. LEGISLATION.
I THINK HE AND OTHERS WHO WORKED
TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERS WOULD
DISAGREE. WITH THE IDEA THAT
THESE WERE SPECIAL SUNSETS.
THIS PAST JANUARY MANY OF US
START HEARING FROM CONCERNED
CONSTITUENTS.
THE SUNSETS PASSED AND PEOPLE
STARTED TO NOTICE.
WHY DON'T WE HEAR MORE AHEAD OF
TIME ABOUT THIS SUNSET?
BECAUSE HOUSING COUNSELORS AND
NON PROFITS WHO PROTECT HOME
CONSUMERS HAVE HAD THEIR HANDS
FULL TRYING TO SAY THE PHONES.
AND TRYING T MANAGE THE CHAOS
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
CALIFORNIA CANNOT GET COMPLACENT
WE NEED TO STEP IN. THIS WOULD
RESTORE THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE
SUN SETS.
THE OPPOSITION COULD PLAY
COMPLAINTS THAT.
S. B. EIGHT ONE EIGHT IS A
BURDEN.
AND WILL CAUSE CONFUSION THEY
SAY IT IS TOO LATE TO GO BACK.
IT IS DIFFERENT GIFTS THAT
DIFFICULT TO. PROVIDE REASONABLE
COMMUNICATION AND DOCUMENTATION.
FOR BORROWERS WHOSE HOMES IS AT
STAKE IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
THE OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL
REPRESENT INDUSTRIES ALLOW THE
FORECLOSURES TO HAPPEN.
THEY FOUGHT AGAINST ORIGINAL
BUILT BY MAKING GENERAL
OVERBLOWN CLAIMS.
NOW THEY'RE DOING THE SAME THING
WITH SP ONE EIGHT EIGHT ONE
EIGHT. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
HAVE CONTINUED TO APPEAR IN THE
NEWS FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES.
AND.
JUST LAST MONTH THE CITY
SACRAMENTO'S ACTUALLY SUED WELLS
FARGO. FOR DISCRIMINATORY
MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES.
WE MUST PROTECT VULNERABLE
HOMEOWNERS VOTE FOR CLOSURES.
HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT
ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR SENIOR
CITIZENS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE ON A
ECONOMICALLY VULNERABLE.
KEEP YOUR HOME CALIFORNIA
PROGRAMS RECEIVED OVER TWENTY
EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
APPLICATIONS
FOR FINANCIALLY DISTRESSED
HOMEOWNERS IN TWENTY SEVEN TO
SEVENTEEN ALONE.
MEMBERS YOU SHOULDN'T KNOW THAT
MANY YOUR CONSTITUENTS OR ASKING
US TO GO MUCH FURTHER TO MAKE TO
HOMEOWNERS BILL RIGHTS EVEN MORE
PROTECTIVE.
THE BILL BEFORE YOU THIS MODEST
SIMPLY BRINGING BACK UP. UP TO
THE STANDARDS WE JUST HAD A FEW
MONTHS AGO.
CALIFORNIA SHOULD NOT SIT AND
WAIT FOR ANOTHER CRISIS.
WE NEED TO PROTECT AND BE PROBED
REFRACTIVE AND MAKING SURE
VULNERABLE HOMEOWNERS HAVE
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. WHEN THEY
NEED THEM.
I HAVE WITNESSES MISTER CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THOSE
WITNESSES ARE GOING TO ASK THAT
WE ESTABLISH A QUORUM SO WE CAN
CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS FOR THE DAY
MOUNT SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
RURAL.
SENATOR BRADFORD PRESENT.
HERE BIDAK PRESIDENT PANIC HERE
GAINES.
GAINES HERE GALGIANI WESO.
HUESO HERE LARA.
PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO HERE.
THANK YOU.
SHOW YET THREE WITNESSES SO
SENATOR. OR TO THEIR WITNESS A
JUMP OKAY WELL.
TO.
BUT
WHATEVER THE. THREE WRITER ERIC.
THE TIP FROM WILL HOPE ACT KEEP
YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT.
THREE MINUTE I WILL THANK YOU
THANK YOU.
MY NAM IS LISA SAID CAN I'M
HERE FROM THE NATIONAL HOUSING
LAW PROJECT BASED IN.
SAN FRANCISCO WE WORK TO.
ADVANCE HOUSING JUSTICE FOR LOW
INCOME ATTENDANCE AND HOMEOWNERS
IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. I'M I
WANTED TO JUST START MY COMMENTS
WHICH I WILL KEEP BRIEF I'M WITH
TWO SHORT STORIES.
UNTIL LAST YEAR I WAS.
INVOLVED IN.
MOSTLY IN DIRECT SERVICES
HELPING HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE
FACING FORECLOSURE AND BEING THE
LIAISON THAT.
A COMMUNICATED BETWEEN THE
HOMEOWNERS AND THE SERVICERS HAD
AND.
WHAT I SAW AS A GENERAL MATTER
AND THE REASON THAT I WILL COME
BACK HERE?
BECAUSE I WAS HERE THE FIRST
TIME THREE YEARS IN A ROW BEFORE
WE GOT EACH BOARD PASSED.
IS THAT HAVING THESE KIND OF
BASIC COMMON SENSE RULES OF THE
ROAD IN PLACE MAKES A HUGE
DIFFERENCE FOR BORROWERS AND FOR
THE ADVOCATES WHO ARE WORKING
WIH THEM.
I'M SO JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
BEFORE THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS WAS IN PLACE AND ON THE
BOOKS.
I WORKED WITH THE DISABLED
SENIOR A WOMAN OF WHO IS SEVENTY
EIGHT LIVING ALONE IN HER HOME.
SHE HAD FALLEN BEHIND ON HER
MORTGAGE AFTER A HAVING
INCREASING HEALTH DIFFICULTIES
AND MEDICAL COSTS.
AND SHE APPLIED FOR MODIFICATION
WAS DENIED FOR UNSPECIFIED
INVESTOR RESTRICTIONS ON
MODIFICATIONS.
WE HAD TO SPEND MANY WEEKS
REQUESTING AND WAITING FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE
NATURE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS
ACTUALLY WAS.
BY THE TIME WE GOT THE
INFORMATION. OF FORECLOSURE SALE
DAY IT WAS ABOUT A WEEK AWAY.
WE READ THE INFORMATION AND
DETERMINED THAT IN FACT THE
RESTRICTION THAT WAS IDENTIFIED
DID NOT.
BAR MODIFICATION AND WE
COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE
SERVICER BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO FORMAL WAY TO APPEAL THEIR
DENIAL DECISION AND NO FORMAL
REQUIREMENT ON THE BOOKS THAT
REQUIRED THEM TO POSTPONE THE
SALE DATE. THE SALE WENT FORWARD
IN ANY CASE. AND.
WHILE WE WORKED AT THE BACK END
AND.
TRIED VERY HARD TO GET IT
UNWOUND.
DOT SITUATION WOULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED IF WE HAD HAD THE HOME
IN A BILL OF RIGHTS WITH THE
APPEAL RIGHT IN PLACE.
AT THAT TIME.
AFTER THE BILL OF RIGHTS PASSED.
I WORKED WITH A FAMILY IN THE
FAR EAST BAY WHO.
WHERE IS THAT COUPLE A BAKERY
EMPLOYEE AND HER HUSBAND WAS A
SELF EMPLOYED CONTRACTOR? AND
THEY WERE INITIALLY DENIED FOR
ASSISTANCE AFTER HIS BUSINESS
I'M CONTRACTED DURING THE CRISIS.
AND FOR HAVING INSUFFICIENT
INCOME A NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS
RECORDED AND DURING THAT TIME
THE HUSBAND WAS ABLE TO
INCREASES BUSINESS AGAIN AND
START INCREASING THE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME.
BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS HAD PROVISIONS IN IT
WHICH WE HAVE NOW LOST IN WHICH
WE'RE TRYING TO RESTORE. A THAT
ALLOWED THEM TO REAPPLY BASED ON
THEIR CHANGE FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO GET DUAL
TRACKING PROTECTIONS.
AGAINST THE FORECLOSURE MOVING
FORWARD WHILE THEY APPLIED MORE
REVIEWED.
WE WERE ABLE TO GET THEM
REVIEWED UNFORTUNATELY THEY WERE
DENIED.
BECAUSE THESE SERVICE ARE
MISCALCULATED THEIR INCOME BUT
WITH A HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS
WE HAVE A RIGHT OF APPEAL. AND
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A PENDING
SALE DATE THAT HAD TO BE
POSTPONED SO THAT WE COULD GET
THE NUMBERS LOOKED AT AGAIN. AND
THEY WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE A
MODIFICATION AND SAVE THEIR
FAMILY HOME.
WHAT THE BILL DOES STATES
BEFORE YOU? IS REALLY VERY
MODEST
PEOPLE TALK IN SORT OF.
GRAND TERMS ABOUT A REENACTMENT
AND WHOLE REENACTMENT.
BUT WE'RE REALLY TALKINGABOUT.
RESTORING A NUMBER OF VERY
IMPORTANT.
.
PROTECTIONS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL THE NILE IN THE TIME TO
DO SO.
SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO GET A
LETTER THAT STATES WE RECEIVED
YOUR APPLICATION HERE'S WHAT'S
MISSING IN WRITING. ON THESE ARE
PRETTY BASIC COMMON SENSE THINGS
THAT MAKE AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE
ON HOMEOWNER SIDE. AND REALLY
GIVEN ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT
ALREADY HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL YEARS AND THE
EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
THAT ARE SIMILAR IN MANY WAYS.
THE IDEA THAT THE COST.
OF THOSE CHANGES AGAIN OR
RESTORING GOING BACK TO THAT
PLACE.
WOULD SOMEHOW COST MORE TO THE
SERVICERS THAN IT IS WORTH TO
HOMEOWNERS WHO OBVIOUSLY HAVE
THEIR HOMES AND FAMILY HOMES AT
STAKE.
I THINK IS JUST WRONG.
SO.
I'M I'M NOT GOING TO.
ADDRESS A LOT OF PARTICULARS OF
THE BILL UNLESS.
MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS I WON'T
TAKE EXTRA TIME DOING THAT WE'VE
PROVIDED A LOT OF MATERIALS THAT
SORT OF LIST THEM. I WOULD JUST
WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT.
A THE KINDS OF THINGS WE'RE
TRYING TO RESTORE HERE.
ARE THINGS WHERE THERE ARE IN
MANY WAYS GAPS IN FEDERAL
PROTECTIONS THAT SORT OF
PARALLEL THE STATE LAW. AND EVEN
WHERE THERE ARE GAPS
THE PROBLEM WITH LOOKING ONLY TO
FEDERAL REGULATIONS IS THAT
THOSE ONLY A PRODUCT.
ALLOW FOR DAMAGES AND THE THING
THAT THE HOMEOWNER RIGHT BILL OF
RIGHTS IS DONE THAT'S BEEN MOST
VALUABLE.
FOR BORROWERS IN ADDITION TO
JUST HAVING THESE RULES AYE PAUL
TELL YOU I NEVER ATUALLY SU TO
SERVICE THESE I JUST WAS ABLE TO
USE THE ROLES. I COULD SAY THIS
IS WHAT THE RULE IS AND GET
THINGS POSTPONED WITH IT. BUT
MANY ATTORNEYS YOU KNOW DID MANY
BORROWERS HAD TO GO TO THAT
POINT BECAUSE THE SERVICE IT
WOULDN'T COMPLY. AND THEY WERE
ABLE TO GET A SALE STOPPED
BEFORE IT HAPPENS WITH
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN RELY ON
THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR.
THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS GIVEN
THE CLIMATE IN WASHINGTON RIGHT
NOW WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE
CFPB ESSENTIALLY GOING TO
CONGRESS THIS WEEK AND SAYING
PLEASE TAKE ALL OUR POWER AWAY.
I JUST DON'T THINK OR SOMETHING
THAT CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS CAN
RELY ON THANK YOU.
THE NETWORK NEWS RONALD COLMAN
HERE ON BEHALF OF CLICK THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION WE'RE HERE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB EIGHT ONE EIGHT
AND BANKS SENATOR BELFOUR'S
LEADERSHIP IN INTRODUCING THIS
VERY IMPORTANT MEASURE WHICH
REESTABLISHES THE PROTECTIONS.
FOR HOMEOWNERS THESE PROTECTIONS
OUTLINED PREVIOUSLY BY MY
COLLEAGUE GAVE HOMEOWNERS A
FIGHTING CHANCE IN SAVING THEIR
MOST VALUABLE ASSET THEIR FAMILY
HOME. CALIFORNIA WAS GROUND ZERO
FOR THE NATION'S FORECLOSURE
CRISIS WE THOUGHT DEVASTATION
ACROSS THE CENTRAL VALLEY. WE
THOUGHT IN THE BAY AREA WE ALSO
THOUGHT ACROSS SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA THEIR NUMBER OF WELL
DOCUMENTED REPORTS FROM THE
CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING
AND OTHERS BUT SHOW MANY
CALIFORNIANS WERE SIMPLY RIPPED
OFF AS THEY ENTERED INTO
MORTGAGE LOAN AGREEMENTS. WHICH
OFTEN DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
FAMILIES WERE OFTEN TARGETED BY
LOAN ORIGINATORS AND STEERED
INTO LOANS WITH RISKY FEATURES
WITHIN THE SUBPRIME MARKET EVEN
THOUGH THEY QUALIFIED FOR OTHER
LOANS. BASED ON THEIR CREDIT
HISTORY WE KNOW THE SAME
COMMUNITIES WERE TARGETED DUE TO
THE PERCEPTIONS OF LOW FINANCIAL
LITERACY WE ALSO KNOW THAT
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES WERE
TARGETED. GIVEN THE LET A LOW.
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AS WELL
AFTER THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS
LOST THEIR HOMES IN THE CRISIS
CALIFORNIA FINALLY STEPPED UP IN
TWENTY TWELVE AND PASSED THIS
LAW.
CLICK OF THE COALITION OF MOSTLY
LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS WITH
ATTORNEYS WHO SPECIALIZE IN
CONSUMER ISSUES IMPACTING LOW
INCOME CALIFORNIANS DURING THE
CRISIS OUR ATTORNEYS HAD LARGE
VOLUMES OF CLIENTS THAT NEVER
HAD ANY REAL OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE
THEIR HOMES. WHILE THEY WERE
SEEKING LOAN MODIFICATIONS THE
FORECLOSURE PROCESS KEPT MOVING
FORWARD SERVICERS KEPT LOSING
DOCUMENTS FAMILY SUFFERED A MAIN
IS OF A PROCESS THEY WEREN'T
GIVEN ACCURATE RELIABLE ARE
NECESSARY INFORMATION THAT THEY
NEEDED. IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY
MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR LOAN
MODIFICATION WHAT DID THIS MEAN.
FAMILIES WERE LEFT HOMELESS
HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WERE
LEFT EMPTY AND OUR COMMUNITIES
WERE LEFT WITH LIGHT.
ONCE THE TWENTY TWELVE BILL WAS
IMPLEMENTED OUR ATTORNEY CITED
THAT THESE BARRIERS IMPEDIMENTS
THAT FAMILIES FACE AS THEY TRY
TO GET LOAN MODIFICATION CEASED.
CALIFORNIA CAN'T.
AFFORD TO HAVE FAMILIES AND UP
HOMELESS WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE
IS A PROVEN WAY TO GET THEM TO
STAY IN THEIR HOMES. IF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COULD
SURVIVE AND CONTINUE TO MAKE
BILLIONS IN PROFITS WITH THE
TWENTY TWELVE BILL IN PLACE WE
DEFINITELY KNOW THAT THESE
PROTECTIONS TODAY WITH A LOWER
VOLUME OF FORECLOSURES. WILL NOT
IMPACT THEN IN GREAT WAYS
ADDITIONALLY WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT CALIFORNIA HAS STRONG
LAWS IN PLACE GIVEN THE
DISMANTLING OF VARIOUS CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP DUE TO THE
UNCERTAINTY CALIFORNIA MUST
CONTINUE TO INSULATE HOMEOWNERS
FROM THESE CHALLENGES WE SHOULD
NOT LET FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
DECIDE HOW THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT
REGULATE THEM ON AN ISSUE THAT
IMPACTS FAMILY SO GREATLY.
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU ALL
TODAY IS WHETHER YOU ARE WILLING
TO STAND WITH CALIFORNIA
FAMILIES WHO MAY BE AT RISK OF
LOSING THEIR HOMES OR INSTEAD
WITH THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
WHO HAVE THE UPPER HAND IN THE
FORECLOSURE PROCESS. OFTEN
LEAVING FAMILIES IN YOUR
DISTRICT HOMELESS.
FAMILIES FACING FORECLOSURE
DESERVE A FAIR CHANCE TO SAVE
THEIR HOMES AND REESTABLISHING
THESE KEY PROVISIONS WILL
ABSOLUTELY DO SO AND FOR THESE
REASONS WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
LOTS WITNESS.
KAREN MEMBER SUSAN MARTIN DEL
WITH CONSUMERS UNION I ONE OF
THE MANY NONPROFIT ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORKED ON THE
ORIGINAL HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS STRONGLYSUPPORTED DOT
BILL AND STRONG SUPPORT THE BILL
BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY.
BUT OF COURSE I HAVE BEEN
DEPUTIZED TO READ.
SOME EXERTS FROM THE STATEMENT
THAT A FORMER SENATOR MARK LENO
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE
EARLIER THIS MORNING.
A BECAUSE AS AUTHOR OF THE
ORIGINAL BILL WE FEEL THAT HIS
VOICE I SHOULD BE HEARD HERE
TODAY I WILL BE VERY BRIEF.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MY VOICE
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF SB EIGHT ONE
EIGHT. AS AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL
CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS ARE EACH BOARD I WAS
PROUD TO WORK WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS
TO STEM THE TIDE OF NEEDLESS
FORECLOSURES IN THE WAKE OF THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS. AND HELP KEEP
FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS INTACT. SEVERAL
BEACH BOYS PROVISIONS WERE
REPEAL BY AUTOMATIC SUNSETS THAT
WENT INTO EFFECT AND IN JANUARY
ONE TWENTY EIGHTEEN THE SUNSETS
WERE THE RESULT OF STAKEHOLDER
COMPROMISE. ALTHOUGH INDUSTRY
STILL CONTINUE TO OPPOSE EACH
PORT TO THE VERY END BUT THEY
SHOULD NOT BE MISTAKENLY SEEN AS
EVIDENCE THAT WE BELIEVED THE
CRISIS WOULD STOP AND NEVER
RETURNED. SB EIGHT ONE EIGHT
WOULD RESTORE THESE PROTECTIONS
WHICH OF WHETHER THE TEST OF
TIME HAD BEEN PART OF THE
INDUSTRY'S DAY TO DAY BUSINESS
FOR SEVERAL YEARS THERE IS
SIMPLY NO RATIONALE. FOR
IGNORING LESSONS WE LEARNED FROM
THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS AND
LEAVING CALIFORNIA'S HOMEOWNERS
AND COMMUNITIES AT RISK.
MOREOVER GIVEN THE TROUBLING
CLIMATE IN WASHINGTON WITH
CONGRESS POISED TO DEREGULATE
THE BANKING INDUSTRY AGAIN. AND
REGULATORS SLOWING OR HALTING
EFFORTS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS THE
POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER RECESSION
WERE CRISIS IS VERY REAL MAKING
ACTION HERE IN CALIFORNIA EVEN
MORE CRITICAL. THE LEGISLATURE
MUST BE PROACTIVE AND REMAIN
VIGILANT IN PREVENTING HOMEOWNER
FORECLOSURES PRESERVING
HOMEOWNERSHIP IS KEY TO GROWING
FAMILY WEALTH.
STABILIZE AND COMMUNITIES AND
PROMOTING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR
ALL IN OUR STATE ON THE TENTH
ANNIVERSARY. OF THE LARGEST
FINANCIAL CRISIS TO HIT AMERICA
SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER HOW FAR
WE'VE COME. AND NOT TO REPEAT
THE SAME MISTAKES THAT INFLICTED
SO MUCH PAIN ON A FELLOW
CALIFORNIANS PLEASE AND ACT AS
BE EIGHT ONE EIGHT WITHOUT DELAY
THANK YOU.
I'M GONNA ASK FOR ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TO STATE
YOUR NAME YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
YOU'LL ADDRESSED A MICROPHONE
THERE BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT REAL
QUICK AREN'T I.
HOUSE BUSINESS CAN WE.
TICKET MOTION FOR EXTENSION
COMMITTEE RULES AND DOWN.
HOW WOULD I GET A MOTION FOR
THAT PLEASE SO WE CAN CONDUCT
OUR BUSINESS?
SO MOVED BY OUR VICE CHAIR MADAM
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE COMMITTEE RULES.
SENATOR BRADFORD BY.
I FIGHT BACK LINE ITEM AYE
GAINES.
GAINES AYE GALGIANI.
GALGIANI AYE WESO.
LARA PORTANTINO.
PORTANTINO I.
ARE RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
THANK YOU ARE OUR FIRST WITNESS.
THE MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
IF NOT HERNANDEZ A MAY HAVE THE
GREEN LINING INSTITUTE IN
SUPPORT.
MAXINE ANTON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF WEST HOLLYWOOD IN SUPPORT.
PRESS YET UP ON THE DS ON BEHALF
OF THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE
LENDING AND STRONG SUPPORT.
NORMA GARCIA ON BEHALF OF THE
MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY IN SAN FRANCISCO AND
STRONG SUPPORT.
CHARLES HARVEY ON BEHALF OF THE
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVEA
PESETA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
HI SABRINA HAMMER THE CALIFORNIA
ASSET BUILDING COALITION IN
SUPPORT.
MICHAEL RIGHT AGAIN ON BEHALF
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY IN SUPPORT.
KEVIN ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF THE
SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT.
FAMILIES BROWN ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
ADVOCATES A CO SPONSOR IN STRONG
SUPPORT THINKING.
A ROUGH CANS A HOMEOWNER FROM
OAKLAND CALIFORNIA.
.
THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS IS STILL
GOING ON IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD I
SEE IT. AND PLEASE THE THESE ARE
VERY MODEST AND SOME OF US THINK
EXTREMELY WEAK MEASURES. PLEASE
AT LEAST GIVE US AS MUCH THANK
YOU POLLUTANTS Y. YOU
NEIGHBORHOODS PLACER. ISRAELI
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHERE
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CITY OR
COUNTY IS OAKLAND OKAY THANK YOU
NEAR THE FRUITVALE AREA OF
OAKLAND WITH OKAY.
OAKLAND'S HAD SOMETHING ON THE
ORDER OF TEN TO TWELVE THOUSAND
FORECLOSURES OKAY THINKING.
GOOD AFTERNOON BEVERLY WITH YOU
W. ASKS E LOCAL THREE NINE
THIRTY IN SUPPORT THINKING.
ALEXANDER HER NAME WITH THE
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY AND SUPPORT.
MY NAME IS EVE CERTAIN I'M
READING A STATEMENT WITH THEM.
COORDINATION FROM EILEEN ON THIS
THIS IS FROM THE ILLEGAL
FORECLOSURES WORKING GROUP WHICH
IS STATEWIDE.
WE'RE JUST TAKING ON WE DID THAT
AND OR HIS A GUEST SO EACH
CERTAIN AND STRONG SUPPORT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH AND SENATOR JERRY
HILLS DISTRICT THANK YOU.
I'M KIRCHER DRAGON FROM PALO
ALTO BY JERRY HILL IS MY SENATOR
IN DISTRICT THIRTEEN.
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT.
ARE SENATE BILL EIGHTEEN I HAVE
SOME FRIENDS WHO ARE AFFECTED.
NANCY NOW FROM PALO ALTO IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
DISTRICT THREE.
ACT TRONG WE SUPPORT THIS BILL
AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I'VE BEEN
ON MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES FOR MORE
THAN TWENTY YEARS. EIGHT OF THEM
ON A RENT STABILIZATION BOARD SO
I KNOW HOW IT AFFECTS HOMEOWNERS
AND RENTERS ALIKE PLEASE SUPPORT
THE BILL.
CRISTINA TEXEIRA WITH CALIFORNIA
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE STRONG
SUPPORT.
THEY'LL BE A TAURUS WITH
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE TRONG WE SUPPORT THE
BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT'S ALL
OVER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT NOW
ARE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION WILL
TAKE THREE AT THE TABLE.
IF YOU HAVE THREE OR THE TWO
THAT YOU HAVE
.
REWRITE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
SENATORS KEVIN COOLED WITH
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION.
WE'D LIKE TO ACHIEVE COMPROMISE
ON THIS MEASURE.
WERE HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN AGREE
TO SOME LIMITED REINSTATEMENT WE
DON'T THINK THAT A WHOLESALE
REINSTATEMENT IS WHAT'S REQUIRED
HERE. ITEM WE WOULD AS ONE OF
THE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
MENTIONED LIKE TO UNDERSTAND.
WHAT THE GAPS ARE IN CALIFORNIA
LAW THERE'S BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT
THAT'S BEEN DONE SINCE THE
HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGTS WAS
ENACTED?
THE CFPB.
ENACTED RULES NOT ONLY WITH
RESPECT TO.
NATIONAL MORTGAGE SERVICING
STANDARDS BUT ALSO CHANGED THE
RULES WITH RESPECT TO
UNDERWRITING ON THE FRONT END.
SO CHANGE THE ABILITY TO REPAY
RULE.
HAS BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF CHANGE
THAT'S HAPPENED AND WE THINK THE
WHOLESALE REINSTATEMENT PROBABLY
DOESN'T MAKE THE MOST SENSE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO DO IS HAVE A
CONVERT.
DEAN ALL THE PROVISIONS OF SON
CITED.
IN OUR VIEW THE EXPIRED
PROVISIONS WERE SUPPOSED TO
SUNSET.
THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
THE IRAQ.
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT. THAT THERE
WAS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND
WE WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION
THAT.
BY THE TIME WE REACHED JANUARY
ONE TWENTY EIGHTEEN THAT THOSE
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
OBJECTED TO WAS DIFFERENT
TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.
A PART OF THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS CREATED.
TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RIGHTS.
AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS
A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY OUTCOME.
SO WHAT HAPPENS JANUARY ONE IS
AT ALL MORTGAGE SERVICERS AND
ALL BORROWERS ARE TREATED
EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.
WE THINK THAT'S A BETTER OUTCOME
AS A FUNCTION PUBLIC POLICY.
THE ABSENCE OF THE REINSTATED
PROVISIONS ARE PROPOSED BY S. B.
EIGHT ONE EIGHT.
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE NO
PROTECTIONS FOR BORROWERS.
IN FACT DUAL TRACKING CONTINUES
TO BE PROHIBITED. THAT WAS THE
CORE OBJECTIVE.
OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF
THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS.
WAS TO SEIZE.
THE NON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
PROCESS WHILE THERE IS
CONSIDERATION NEGOTIATION. OF
FORECLOSURE PREVENTION
ALTERNATIVE.
THOSE DUAL TRACKING PROVISIONS
CONTINUE TO EXIST CONTINUES TO
PROHIBIT THAT ACTIVITY UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW.
THE SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT TO
TRY TO ADDRESS THE
COMMUNICATIONS SITUATION.
WHERE DISTRESSED BORROWERS WERE?
ON NOT HAVING THE APPROPRIATE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE. A A
CONTINUOUS CONVERSATION WITH
SOMEBODY.
THAT STILL IS A FEATURE OF
CALIFORNIA LAW. SO A SINGLE
POINT OF CONTACT CONTINUES TO BE
A FEATURE OF CALIFORNIA LAW FOR
LARGER MORTGAGE SERVICERS.
THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTINUED TO BE A FEATURE OF LAW.
SO BEFORE YOU CAN ADVANCE TO
FILING YOUR NOTICE OF DEFAULT.
HE REQUIRED TO SATISFY DUE
DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT YOU CAN EXPLORE IN
CONSIDER DISTRESSED BORROWERS
FROM VARIOUS OPTIONS. TO AVOID
A FEATURE OF CALIFORNIA LAW.
FINALLY I WOULD SAY.
AS A FEATURE OF CALIFORNIA LAW
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
WHICH HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO.
REMAINS UNALTERED.
SO WHEN THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS WAS ADOPTED. THE WAS A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH WE
HAD SIGNIFICANT CONCERN WITH.
THAT ALLOWS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
AND COURT COSTS AS EARLY AS AN
INJUNCTION.
NOT PREVAILING ON THE MERITS.
THAT CONTINUES TO BE A FEATURE
OF CALIFORNIA LAW.
SO IN OUR VIEW THERE IS A NUMBER
OF REASONS WHY A WHOLESALE
REINSTATEMENT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
WE'D LIKE TO ENGAGE IN A
CONVERSATION TO SEE IF THERE'S
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME
LIMITED REINSTATEMENT FOR THOSE
PROVISIONS THAT MAKE SENSE.
BUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED. AND ALSO THE CHANGING
MARKETPLACE CONDITIONS.
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS.
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE ARE TWO
CODE SECTIONS TWO NINE TO THREE
POINT SIX AND TWO NINE TWO FOUR.
POINT TEN OF THE CIVIL CODE THIS
SEEM TO HAVE MOST OF THOSE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
AND IF THE BILL WERE NARROW TO
THAT WE WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION.
WE THINK THAT MAKE SENSE.
BUT FOR THE REASONS STATED WE
REGRETFULLY AFTER OPPOSE THE
MEASURE TODAY.
MISTER CHAIR COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MY NAME IS PAT ISN'T ALONE WITH
KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION.
MR GOULD COVERED.
MANY OF THE MAJOR POINTS
SOMETHING TO KEEP MY TESTIMONY
SHORT SO THAT I DON'T REPEAT
IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID. FIRST I
WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU MISTER
CHAIR AND.
THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT ON THE
ANALYSIS SAID IT IS A VERY A
DETAILED IN DEPTH ANALYSIS.
AND AND I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
ON THE ANALYSIS THAT. COME AT
ITS PEAK REALLY MAKES IT CLEAR
THAT.
IF THIS BILL MOVES OUT OF
COMMITTEE WHETHER OR NOT IT
MOVES ON COMMITTEE WHICH I
SUSPECT IT WILL.
ALL OF THE MAJOR PROTECTIONS
THAT MOST PEOPLE ENVISIONED WITH
RESPECT TO THE HOMEOWNER BILL OF
RIGHTS ARE STILL IN PLACE.
PERSONAL OUT REACH TO THE
HOMEOWNER TO EXPLORE
ALTERNATIVES BEFORE THE
FORECLOSURE PROCESS BEGINS NO
DUAL TRACKING. AND MAKING A
SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
AVAILABLE WITH THE SERVICER TO
WORK WITH THE BORROWER.
UP NEXT
WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE HELPFUL
IS TO PROVIDE A FEW DATA POINTS
DUMB AND SOME BACKGROUND.
AND.
MARKETPLACE INFORMATION THAT
THE BILL WOULD ACTUALLY IMPACTS
SO HERE'S A FEW CALIFORNIA
SPECIFIC DATA POINTS. ACOSTA
SERVICE SCENE OF COST OF SERVICE
SERVICING ONPERFORMING
MORTGAGES IS GONE UP FOUR
HUNDRED PERCENT.
FROM APPROXIMATELY FOUR HUNDRED
EIGHTY TWO DOLLARS IN TWO
THOUSAND EIGHT. TO TWO THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN DOLLARS IN
TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN.
THE AVERAGE CALIFORNIA TIMELINE
FOR FOR IT FOR THE FORECLOSURE
PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING TO
THE END.
HAS INCREASED
UP FROM A HUNDRED EIGHTY ABOUT
HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR DAYS IN TWO
THOUSAND SEVEN TO APPROXIMATELY
SIX HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX DAYS
IN TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN.
IN.
SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX DAYS.
A AND FORECLOSURES ARE AT A
HISTORICALLY VERY LOW RATE.
LESS THAN HALF OF ONE PERCENT.
IN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN AS COMPARED
TO FIVE POINT EIGHT THREE
PERCENT OF LOANS AT THE HEIGHT
OF THE CRISIS.
I IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF TWO
THOUSAND NINE.
I MAKE THOSE POINTS JUST FROM
THE PERSPECTIVE OF ONE TO
PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION
BACKGROUND AND SU SU THAT.
IT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE
IN A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE TODAY
AS COMPARED TO WHEN THE
TEMPORARY PROVISIONS OF THIS
BILL WOULD REINSTATE WERE
ENACTED. MORE IMPORTANTLY THE
LEGISLATURE HAS MADE IT VERY
CLEAR.
BUT IT'S A PRIORITY TO PROMOTE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THIS BILL
IN MY OPINION DOES NOTHING IN
THAT REGARD. ON ESPECIALLY WHEN
HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES IN
CALIFORNIA ARE HISTORICALLY AT A
AT A HISTORICALLY VERY LOW RATE
ABOUT.
THE THREE POINT EIGHT PERCENT.
AS COMPARED TO SIXTY THREE POINT
SEVEN PERCENT NATIONALLY AND.
I'M I I THINK IF ANYTHING THIS
BILL WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
AS FAR AS.
HELPING WITH RESPECT TO HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY IN CREDIT FOR
ABILITY.
WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID IS MR
GOULD IT MENTIONED WE WOULD LIKE
TO REACH A COMPROMISE AND
BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS PROVIDED A PATH THAT
COMPROMISE.
IN THE COMMENTS SECTION.
POINT NUMBER TEN. AND WE WOULD
BE WILLING TO AGREE TO FOCUSING
THE BILL ON REINSTATING THOSE TO
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS.
AT THAT SUNSET SECTIONS TWENTY
NINE TWENTY THREE POINT SIX IN
SECTION TWENTY NINE TWENTY FOUR
POINT TIME THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MIKE
BALOGUN BEHALF THE UNITED
TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION ALL BE
BRIEF. OUR MEMBERS CONDUCT NON
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES IN
CALIFORNIA THOSE ARE
FORECLOSURES NOT. DONE THROUGH
THE COURT SYSTEM THEIR TWO WAYS
TO FORECLOSE ON PROPERTY IN
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL AND NON
JUDICIAL. AND IN THE HOMEOWNERS
BILL OF RIGHTS NEGOTIATIONS THE
LEGISLATURE WORKED REAL HARD.
INCLUDING SENATOR LENO AND THE
OTHER.
.
PROPONENTS
TO.
APPROPRIATELY BALANCE THE
PROCEDURES IN NON JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE TO AVOID PUSHING ALL
OF THESE ISSUES OFTEN TO THE
COURT SYSTEM WHICH WE DIDN'T
THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR ANYONE.
AND WE.
I THINK. WE DID A PRETTY GOOD
JOB CRAFTING THAT NO AND
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT IT.
IT WAS BENEFICIAL IN MANY WAYS
NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
EXTENDING THOSE SECTIONS WHICH
A SUNSET AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
OUR PEOPLE DO NON JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURES IN STRICT
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIVIL CODE.
IF THEY VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF
THE CIVIL CODE INCLUDING THE
HOMEOWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS
THEY'RE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES AND
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE SO WE HAVE
TO GET THIS RIGHT.
A WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION
WITH SENATOR BELL AND HIS STAFF
AND WITH THE COMMITTEE AND I
THINK THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE
PRODUCTIVE WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE
TO TALK ABOUT AREAS THAT WE
DON'T THINK WORK. PERFECTLY IN
THE HOMEOWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS
NOW IN TERMS OF REPEATED A
APPLICATIONS FOR LOAN
MODIFICATION AND ALSO VERY LATE
APPLICATIONS FOR LOAN
MODIFICATIONS BUT I DON'T THINK
WERE REAL FAR APART ON THIS. AND
I THINK PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS
CAN ARRIVE AT AN ACCOMMODATION
THAT WORKS FOR LENDERS AND
SERVICERS AND TRUSTEES AND
BORROWERS IN YOUR COMMUNITIES
AND WITH THAT WE PLEDGE TO
CONTINUE HAVING THESE
DISCUSSIONS WITH SENATOR BILL.
THANK YOU.
Q. PREACHER VERY MUCH.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION YOU KNOW THE
RETAINING WALL TOOK THE
MICROPHONE STATE ORGANIZATION
INTERNET.
TAYLOR IN THERE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WE REMAIN OPPOSED.
BRITNEY SAID SIR WHISTLE JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THE TO EXTEND OF OUR WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION OKAY SEEN NO
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ARE BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE ANY
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SENATOR GALGIANI.
YOU KNOW MY AREA WAS GROUND ZERO
FOR OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
AND IN MY OLD.
DISTRICT WE STILL DO HAVE
FORECLOSURES HOME FOR A NUMBER
OF REASONS BUT ONE HAVING TO DO
WITH DODD FRANK BECAUSE.
APPRAISALS CAN ONLY CONSIDER
THE VALUE OF OTHER HOMES FOR
SALE WITHIN ONE MILE SO AND IN
RURAL AREAS WHERE. THEIR VERY
INFREQUENT SALES AND THERE ARE
MANY FORECLOSURES SOMEONE WHO IS
TRYING TO SELL THEIR HOMES STILL.
ON CAN IT ONLY HAVE THEIR HOME
VALUE APPRAISED AT HOME THAT WAS
SOLD MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF
EARLIER. WITHIN A MILE THAT IS
NOT SOMEONE SOMEWHERE TO THEIR
HOME YET IF THEY'RE TRYING TO.
IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO COMPARE
THEIR HOME TO SOMETHING THAT'S
TEN MILES AWAY THAT'S EXACTLY
LIKE THEIR HOME THE CAN DODD.
FRANK PROHIBITS SAT SO THERE'S
SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT WOULD
THAT WE HAVEN'T TACKLED BUT. AS
AS THE PERSON WHO. AND. PUT
TOGETHER FORECLOSURE PREVENTION
WORKSHOPS LONG BEFORE THE BANKS
WERE WERE.
OR ANYBODY IN THIS BUILDING FOR
ACTUALLY EITHER WAS FOCUSED ON
IT WE YOU KNOW WE WERE COBBLING
TOGETHER WORKSHOPS AND TRYING TO
HELP HOMEOWNERS.
I WANT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND.
Y. WHY THE CHANGE IN THE NUMBER
OF DAYS THAT IT TAKES FOR ACTUAL
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING TO BE
FINISHED IN MAY BE SOMEBODY. A.
I THINK IT WAS MAYBE PAT SINCE
ALL OF THAT THAT TALKED ABOUT
THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT TAKES
WORK FORECLOSURE NOW. I'M
WONDERING. WHY THAT IS IS IT IS
IT BECAUSE OF A A CHANGE IN
POLICY AT THE STATE LEVEL IS?
WHAT OTHER REASONS MIGHT THERE
BE AND?
I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. HOW I WANT TO BE
SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE PUTTING
FORWARD GETS AT THE ROOT OF A
KEEPING ALL OF THE BEST PIECES I
JUST WANNA BET ON A BETTER
UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD IT IS
THAT'S? THAT'S NAY MAYBE NOT AS
WORKABLE NOW.
BECAUSE THE FEDERAL CHANGES AND
I'M NOT I'M NOT GRASPING THAT
I'M SORRY YEAH I THINK THE I
THINK OF MY ANSWER TO YOU WOULD
BE IN THAT REGARD IT IT'S
BECAUSE OF THE. VERY COMPLEX
REQUIREMENTS BOTH AT THE STATE
LEVEL ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND
SOME OF SOME OF THEM ARE GOOD
REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS A MEDIUM
TRYING TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE
BEFORE HAND. WORKING WITH THE
BAR WERE.
DURING THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS
REVIEWING THE APPLICATION XTERRA
BUT.
PROCESS FROM A SERVICING
PERSPECTIVE HAS GOTTEN SO MUCH
MORE COMPLEX.
OVER THE LAST REALLY SEVENTY
YEARS NINE YEARS.
SO THAT TAKES LONGER IT'S MORE
EXPENSIVE THAT'S WHY THE
PROCESSES IS YOU KNOW IT'S SIX
TERMS TO BE SIX DAYS IT'S SHE
JUST SHORT OF FOR TWO YEARS.
AND ALSO WHY IT'S GOTTEN FOUR
TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE TO SERVICE
NOT PERFORMING MORTGAGES IT IT'S
THE COMBINATION OF THESE NEW
REQUIREMENTS ONCE AGAIN BOTH THE
STATE LEVEL AND AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL. REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER
HAPPENS WITH CFPB.
OF THE ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR IS WE STILL HAVE VERY
STRONG PROTECTIONS UNDER THE
EXISTING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL
OF RIGHTS SO THAT DOES THAT DID
NOT GO AWAY AT THE END OF LAST
YEAR.
SAID THIS THIS EXTENSION OF TIME
THEN IS THAT FOR FOR ALL BANKS
ACROSS THE BOARD IN GENERAL OR
IS THAT MOSTLY. THAT THE
SERVICERS WHO HAVE MULTIPLE
ENTITIES WHO HAVE TO APPROVE ANY
MODIFICATION ETCETERA.
SO THERE IS IT MORE FOCUSED ON
THE SERVICERS OR BROAD BASED THE
IT'S IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD SO
IT'S IT THESE ARE FORECLOSURES
IN CALIFORNIA THE AVERAGE TIME
FRAME THIS IS COMING FROM THE.
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION THE
NATIONAL GROUP.
SO IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD.
ALL ENTITIES.
IS THERE ANY PART OF THE SYSTEM
ANY PART OF. WHAT'S IN PLACE NOW
THAT'S BEING ABUSED.
A I DON'T WANT TO USE THE TERM
ABUSED BUT I THINK I THINK
THERE'S BEEN IN THE PAST AND
AGGRESSIVENESS TO SEEK ANY ANY
POTENTIAL ABILITY. TO DELAY.
A FORECLOSURE PROCESS AND
OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY WANTS TO
KEEP THE CONSUMER IN THE HOME.
SO THE FEEDBACK THAT I GET FROM
OUR MEMBERS IS THAT WE WILL BEND
OVER BACKWARDS TO TRY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSUMER. AND
NOBODY WANTS TO FORECLOSE ON THE
PROPERTY IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT
GOOD FOR THE HOMEOWNER IS NOT
GOOD FOR THE MORTGAGE LENDER THE
SERVICER.
OKAY AND IS TRYING TO I'M TRYING
THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PIECES
THAT ARE THAT ARE STAYING IN THE
BILL THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE
WITH. AND THEN.
PROHIBITION ON THE DOLE TRACKING
AND SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT AND.
THE EXTRA PROVISIONS FOR THE
SERVICERS.
AND I'M I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER PIECES
ARE THAT MIGHT.
AND. THAT ARE.
WORKABLE THAT THAT WERE NOT
THERE ON YAK YEAH I THINK I
THINK IT'S IT'S AN UPPER THINGS
ONE OF IT ONE OF THE KEY POINTS
IS AND I THINK MISTER GOULD
BROUGHT THIS UP. I'M ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT HAPPENS IF THESE A
SUNSET PROVISIONS GO BACK INTO
PLACE WHICH WE WE NEVER THOUGHT
MADE SENSE. IS THAT YOU CREATE
TD HAVE DESPERATE SYSTEM ONE FOR.
SERVICES HAVE WELL OVER HUNDRED
SEVENTY FIVE FORECLOSURES IN
LAST TWELVE MONTH PERIOD AND IN
A DIFFERENT SYSTEM FOR THOSE
THAT HAVE HAD LESS THAN A
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE
FORECLOSURES OR UP TO A HUNDRED
SEVEN FIVE FORECLOSURES I SHOULD
SAY. AND AND WE NEVER THOUGHT
THAT MADE SENSE YOU KNOW IF IT'S
GOOD FOR THE WITH THE BORROWER.
DE TO HAVE THESE RULES WHY
WOULD IT MATTER WHICH
INSTITUTION YOU GO TO IN ORDER
TO GET THAT CONSUMER PROTECTION
SO ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE
THINK IS PROBLEMATIC IS YOU DO
THIS WOULD REINSTATE THOSE
DESPERATE RULES.
SECOND THE THE.
HE WOULD MOVE FURTHER FROM
CONFORMITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
NATIONAL SEE IF THE BE RULES IN
OUR OPINION IF THESE GO BACK
INTO AFFECTS SO TO THE EXTENT
THAT WE DON'T HAVE UNIFORMITY.
OR LESS UNIFORMITY IT JUST MAKES
IT MORE COMPLICATED MORE
DIFFICULT FOR THE SERVICER.
IS THERE SOME IS THERE SOMETHING
THAT'S.
GLARING THAT.
IS DIFFERENT AT. THE STATE LEVEL
FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL IT'S
SOMETHING SPECIFIC THAT ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT IS I UNDERSTAND
IT AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT AT THE
FEDERAL RULES ON BECAUSE I WANT
TO FOCUS ON THE CALIFORNIA RULES
BUT. IT ONE OF THE EXAMPLES AS I
UNDERSTAND IT.
IS THAT UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES
THERE CERTAIN TIME FRAMES AN EGG
AND I COULD GIVE YOU WITH THE
EXACT DAYS ARE BUT THEY'RE
CERTAIN TIME FRAMES BEFORE WHICH.
A CUSTOMER HAS TO FILE FOR AN
APPLICATION OR FOR AN APPEAL.
WITH RESPECT TO.
A MODIFICATION OR FORECLOSURE.
AND NOW YOU CAN'T DO IT UP UNTIL
THE FINAL DAY.
WHERE AS A SITE MY
UNDERSTANDING IS UNDER THE
HOMEOWNER BILL WRITES THERE IS
NO DEADLINE THERE'S NO YOU KNOW
TIME FRAME YOU COULD ACTUALLY?
TRY TO STOP THE FORECLOSURE
PROCESS UP UNTIL THE VERY END.
PRIOR TO THE NOTICE OF SALE SO
THAT'S ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I WAS
GIVEN AS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.
THE FEDERAL RULES IN THE STATE
RULES.
THANK YOU AND MAYBE SENATOR BELL
I'M JUST I I WANT TO BE SURE
THAT I UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE MY
CONSTITUENTS.
ARE NOT AS IMPACTED AS THEY
ONCE WERE. BUT THEY ARE IMPACTED
I AND I REALLY WANTED GRASS THIS
AND I'M AND I'M HAVING SOME
TROUBLE.
THE FLEXIBLE. THANK YOU THANK
YOU.
WELL I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY
ONE THING JUST TO RESPOND. VERY
BRIEFLY TO THE QUESTION ABOUT
THE LENGTH AND I I'M NOT SURE
EXACTLY WHAT THAT DATA COMPRISES
IN TERMS OF TIME LINES AND STUFF
BUT. SOME PART OF WHAT HAS
HAPPENED IS THAT THE FEDERAL
RULES.
REQUIRE WE HAVE A NATIONAL
STANDARD NOW THAT NO NOTICE OF
DEFAULT CAN BE RECORDED FOR THE
FIRST HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS OF
DELINQUENCY. SO THAT'S THAT'S
JUST ADDED ON THAT'S APART FROM
ANYTHING. YOU VOTE ON TODAY HIT
FOR THAT'S THERE.
AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THAT. YOU KNOW IN LARGE PART MY
EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH HUNDREDS
OF BORROWERS WAS THAT A LOT OF
THE DELAYS WERE BORROWER AND
WE'RE SERVICE SIR INEFFICIENCIES
I MEAN WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH
BORROWERS MAKE MISTAKES TOO. YOU
KNOW ALL KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN
BUT ENORMOUS.
DELAYS HAPPEN OUT THE SERVICER
AND DURING THIS PROCESS THAT
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE
RULES ARE ON THE BOOKS THEY HAVE
TO DO WITH THE MECHANICS AND THE
FUNCTIONING OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR.
PROVIDE.
WHAT ABOUT THE HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY FIVE FORECLOSURES?
Y. SHOULD.
.
THE CUSTOMER THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT.
CHANGE BY THE SIZE OF THE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION I'M I'M
GUESSING A LARGER INSTITUTIONS
GONNA HAVE MORE FORECLOSURES BUT
WHY WOULD WOULD WOULD BE ON AN
EQUAL.
PLAYING FIELD IN A NIGHT TO
FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. PART OF THE
CUSTOMER.
CLIENTS NO. UNDER WHICH RULES
THEY FALL UNDER.
ESPECIALLY TODAY WHEN WE GET
THERE PAULSON SAID IT.
.
SENATOR YOU KNOW HOW ARE THEY
GOING TO KNOWN A DOCTOR FROM
BOTH SIDES ON THAT.
YOU WANNA GO OR SELECT.
I'M I DIDN'T THE RISK OF
REPEATING MYSELF WE NEVER WE
NEVER THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE.
YOU KNOW IF IF THERE'S A SET OF
RULES THAT MAKE SENSE THERE
SHOULD BE ONE SETOF RULES THAT
MAKE SENSE SO FROM FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE IS THAT SOMETHING WE
ALWAYS.
WHO STRONGLY OPPOSED?
SO.
.
I NEVER WANTED THERE TO BE TWO
SETS OF RULES EITHER BUT I THINK
THAT THAT TAKES US TO DIFFERENT
PLACES SO. IN THE ORIGINAL TO GO
SHE HAITIANS WE HAD HOPED TO
HAVE THE MOST ROBUST MOST STRONG
PROTECTIONS FOR ALL BORROWERS.
DURING THOSE NEGOTIATIONS IT WAS
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF.
VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO HAD.
DECISION MAKING POWER THAT.
THERE WEE CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS
WHO HAD SMALLER VOLUMES AND
OPERATED IN DIFFERENT WAYS BUT
HAD HAD LESS COMPLAINTS FEWER
PROBLEMS IN THESE AREAS AND THEY
WERE ACCORDED. A SLIGHTLY LESSER
STANDARD WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS
NOT. ENTIRELY.
NON DISPARITY IF THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE CALLING IT BECAUSE THERE
IS STILL A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS
OF THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A
SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT THAT
STILL APPLIES UNDER CURRENT POST
INSIDE EACH MORE. JUST TO THE
LARGER SERVICERS.
SO YOU KNOW IN MY IDEAL WORLD
WE WOULD BE RESTORING MESSIN IT
WOULD APPLY TO ALL SERVICERS BUT
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO GO
BACK TO WHERE WE WERE SO THAT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF BORROWERS
WHO ARE THE ONES. WITH THE LOANS
SERVICED BY THE BIGGER SERVICERS
GET THE MOST PROTECTION POSSIBLE.
AND I THINK YOU HAD ONE OTHER
QUESTION THAT I THINK THAT THE
CUSTOMER THEMSELVES HOW DO THEY
KNOW WHICH.
YES IT CAN BE SOMEWHAT
DIFFICULT THERE WAS ORIGINALLY.
REPORTING TO THE DB ó THEY
WOULD GET PUBLISHED IN THERE
WERE LISTS BUT. THAT HAS
SOMEWHAT FALLEN BY THE WAYSIDE
HONESTLY SO THAT SOMETHING WE
MIGHT NEED TO REVISIT. IT WHAT
WHAT THEN INTO THIS ALL HAPPENED
BEFORE I GOT HERE BUT I'D YOU
KNOW MY DISTRICT IS LIKE
KATHLEEN'S AVENUE THERE WAS IS.
HORRIBLE MEMBERS IT IS
DEVASTATING. NAM AND OUR TO LESS
THAN A HALF PERCENT TO MOVE DOWN
FROM FIVE TO LESSEN HALF A
PERCENT.
THAT THINGS WERE GETTING BETTER
BY THE TIME THE LEGISLATURE
FINALLY ACTED NEW YORK WE'RE ALL
WORKING ON IT FOR THREE YEARS IT
SOUNDED LIKE IN IN FINALLY GOT A
PALESTINIAN THINGS JUST KEPT
GETTING BETTER AND BETTER.
SO OFTEN.
AGAIN COSTS.
INCREASED REGULATIONS OR
STANDARDS THAT ALWAYS DRIVES
COSTS UP I REPRESENT PROBABLY
THE POOREST DISTRICT IN THE
STATE. I'M ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT
ACCESS TO HOMEOWNERSHIP.
AND IN SOME WAYS
WE TRY TO HELP BUT THEN WE END
UP INCREASING THE COSTS.
FOR FOR THE PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY
TRYING TO HELP.
AND SO I I'M JUST WONDERING IS
THERE ANY INNINGS.
STATISTICS THAT THAT YOU CAN
POINT TO THEY'RE SHOWING THAT
THIS IS ACTUALLY HELPING PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND IN THEIR HOMES OR IS
A PROLONGING SOMEBODY'S WHO WERE
COMING LESSEN HALF PERCENT
THAT'S.
AFTER YOU GET IN ANYBODY'S.
BUSINESS.
YEAH SO BESIDES CLEAN ANSWER I
HAVE A COMMENT OKAY.
THE I GUESS I WOULD SAY.
I DON'T VIEW THIS AS I'M I'M
NOT HERE TO REPRESENT THAT WERE
IN THE MIDST OF A CRISIS I DON'T
THINK ANY OF US WOULD AGREE.
THAT WE ARE AND HAPPILY WE HAVE
WHETHER THAT AND COME THROUGH MY
CONCERN BASED ON THE WORK THAT I
DO AND ALSO JUST AS A CALIFORNIA
CITIZEN IS THAT. I THINK THAT
WHEN LAWS AND RULES MAKES SENSE
AND HAVE BEEN HELPFUL WHICH.
THEY HAVE BEEN.
THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO PUT
THEM ASIDE AND WAIT FOR ANOTHER
CRISIS AND THEN WAIT ANOTHER
THREE YEARS TO TRY TO WORK
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
I THINK. THERE MANY MANY LAWS
THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS THAT
ARE TO PROTECT US FROM THINGS
THAT MAY HAPPEN AND I ALSO THINK
THAT THERE IS REASON TO HAVE
SOME FEAR THAT THERE ARE RISKS
THAT THINGS YOU KNOW SOME SORT
OF CRISIS COULD CALM. AGAIN BY I
DON'T KNOW NONE OF US KNOWS BUT
THERE ARE YOU KNOW STILL NUMBERS
OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THERE WERE
OVER TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND
APPLICANTS TO KEEP YOUR HOME
CALIFORNIA WHICH IS A PROGRAM
THAT SPENDING THIS YEAR IT'S
FUNDING IS OVER SO. THAT
BACKSTOPS TO THE SERVICERS
GIVING PEOPLE MODIFICATIONS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT IS GOING TO BE
GONE THE NEXT TIME AROUND AND I
THINK WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE. YOU
KNOW A SOLID.
PROTECTIVE.
FENCE IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT IN
PLACE THAT THAT WILL PROTECT
THEM.
I WOULD ALSO JUST SAY IN TERMS
OF DATA OR STATISTICS BUT I
THINK.
.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT YOU
KNOW IT'S EASY TO SAY I THINK
THAT SERVICING COSTS WENT UP
FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT IN SOME HOW
TO SAY IT BUT THAT'S
THE FAULT OF THESE FEW
PROVISIONS NH FOR. I THINK
THAT'S A VERY HARD CASE TO MAKE
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA ON
SERVICING COSTS
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
INCREASE HAPPENED.
BY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SO
BEFORE H. POOR WENT INTO EFFECT
IN BEFORE THE FEDERAL
REGULATIONS WENT INTO A FACT
THEY WERE IN LARGE PART THE
RESULT OF THE SERVICING INDUSTRY.
RESPONDING TO CRISIS THEY HAD
NEVER SEEN COMING AND THAT'S
COSTS WENT UP THEY DID GO UP
SOMEWHAT AFTER THAT BUT THEY
ALSO WENT DOWN SOME YEARS SO. I
THINK THE CORRELATION YOU KNOW
IT'S ALWAYS DANGEROUS
CORRELATION AND CAUSATION.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE CASE HAS
BEEN MADE THAT UP THAT.
THE INCREASE IS GOING TO
TRANSLATE INTO PEOPLE IN YOUR
DISTRICT NOT BEING ABLE TO GET
LOANS PEOPLE HERE DISTRICT MAY
HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING LOANS
ARE NOT CONTESTING THAT. BUT I
THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER
VARIABLES THAT GO INTO THAT AND
THIS IS AT MOST A TINY DROP IN
THE BUCKET I DON'T THINK. THAT.
MAKES A DIFFERENCE JUST JUST A
COMMENT ON THIS BILL.
THE REGIONAL BILL THE PROCESS
THAT DEVELOPED WITH THE ORIGINAL
BILL BELOW.
IS DIFFERENT.
DID HAPPENED DIFFERENT A NORMAL
BUILT THIS IS A BILL THAT WENT
TO A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
AND THERE WAS A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT.
WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF
THE BILLS THAT HAPPENED HERE.
AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
REPORT CAME OUT WITH THE
ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE.
ENDORSING A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT. AND THAT
CREATE S. B. S. B. NINE HUNDRED
SO THAT THAT'S HOW THE BILL WAS
CREATED REGIONALLY. AND IT WAS.
SITUATION WHERE YOU COURSE WE
HAVE THIS SONG.
FORECLOSURES IN BOTH OF YOUR
SENATE MY COLLEAGUES THE
DISTRICTS AND OTHERS.
BUT THE THE FORECLOSURES BECAME.
.
CONCENTRATED.
.
IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE STATE
MORE.
YES AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE
AREAS. IS
IT BEGAN TO AFFECT THE PROPERTY
VALUES OF ALL. THE HOUSING
AROUND. THE FORECLOSURES SO
BECAME KIND OF LIKE.
A RASH OF FORECLOSURES THAT'S
SPREAD IN LOWERE THE VALUE OF
THE HOUSING AROUND AND THAT'S
BECAUSE THEY'RE BECAUSE THE. A
DEVASTATING EFFECT ON ON.
FISCAL CONDITION OF THE STATE.
YOU KNOW WE I'M AROUND BUDGET
COMMITTEE WE WERE LOOKING AT
THIRTY BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET
DEFICITS.
.
IT IT IT REALLY.
REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES
IT HAD A DEVASTATING EFFECT SO
SO THIS IS OF THIS FORECLOSURE
ISSUE. TO ME IS A VERY DANGEROUS.
DANGEROUS THING TO DO TINKER
WITH.
AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE THEIR
PROTECTIONS.
NOT ONLY FOR THIS CONSUMER.
BEFORE THE PUBLIC IN CALIFORNIA.
ON THESE FOR CLOSURES BECAUSE
THEY CAN HAVE A DEVASTATING
EFFECT. IF A ANOTHER RASH
DEVELOPS OF FORECLOSURES. IT
COULD IT COULD IT COULD REPEAT
ITSELF WE LEARNED OUR LESSONS
THE FIRST TIME. WE DON'T WANT TO
GO THROUGH THAT THIRTY BILLION.
SOME OF US.
.
THEY CAME.
THE COLLEAGUES THAT CAME ON
BOARD WITH ME IN TWENTY OH SIX.
THE BUDGET GOT TO THE LEVEL
WHERE WAS IN TWENTY WAS SIX.
JUST THIS LAST YEAR.
SO FROM FROM THE AND AND THEN
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN CERTAIN
AREAS.
IT IT BECAUSE THE BANKRUPTCIES
IT BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST. A
DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THOSE
COMMUNITIES
SO THIS FORECLOSURE ISSUE IS
VERY IMPORTANT.
TO KEEP.
THE PROTECTIONS.
AND.
THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY
INTRODUCES BILL AFTER ALL THE
WORK WE DID LAST YEAR ON HOUSING.
BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT
TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES.
RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
LIKE TO COMMENT ON SENATOR
GALGIANI.
I WANT TO THANK YOU SENATOR BOB
FOR BRINGING THE BILL FLORA COME
AND BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY BUT I
I WANT TO BRING SOMETHING UP
THAT I I THINK WE HAVE A FALSE
SENSE OF SECURITY THAT. THAT
CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN FULLY
PROTECTED WITH WHAT'S BEEN DONE
WE'VE DONE WHAT WE CAN BUT ONE
OF THE BIG PROBLEMS THAT NOBODY
TALKS ABOUT. IT IS THAT WITH
KEEP YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HOME
CALIFORNIA AND SOME OF THESE
OTHER PROGRAMS UNLESS YOU HAD A
FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC.
DID I GET THAT REVERSED UNLESS
YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE LOANS.
YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR THE
PROGRAM STILL IF YOU'RE A
BORROWER LIKE I WAS.
MY HOME THE VALUE DROPPED BY
HALF.
BY HALF.
AYE NOBODY WOULD EVEN TALK TO
ME BECAUSE I WAS NOT OF THAT.
FREDDIE MAC OR FANNIE MAE.
AND SO I I COULDN'T GET ANY HELP
WHATSOEVER FROM ANY OF THAT SO
THOSE WHO ANYBODY WHO PUT MORE
THAN THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM DOWN
ON THEIR HOME OR WHO DIED OF A
SECOND HOME. THEY WERE LEFT OUT
IN THE COLD.
THEY WERE LEFT ON THE CLOCK
THAT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THIS
BILL BRAND BRINGING IT UP BUT
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE. THAT WE LAY BLAME THEIR
TO FOR FOR WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE
MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE MISLED SAID
THINKING THAT THERE IS HELP OUT
THERE FOR THEM THERE WAS NO HELP
OUT THERE FOR THEM IT LOOKED
GOOD. BUT THERE WASN'T.
AND AND AGAIN IT WAS NOTHING
THAT WE DID OR DIDN'T DO IT WAS.
THAT WAS FEDERAL BECAUSE ANY
BANK THAT WOULD OFFER OF A
FORECLOSURE MODIFICATION TO
SOMEBODY THAT WAS NOT. FREDDIE
MAC OR FANNIE MAE.
WOULD NOT BE INSURED IF THERE
WAS A LOS.
AND THEY HAD TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES TO SO I I JUST WANT
TO BRING THAT POINT ABSENCE WERE
SINCE FOR HAVING THE
CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO KNOW AND I DON'T
KNOW HOW WE FIX IT.
NUMBER.
GROWTH MISTER PRESIDENT I I.
.
I.
HAVE HEARD THAT MANY MANY TIMES.
AND SINCE I BROUGHT THIS BILL. I
MEAN PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
WHY CAN'T YOU DO MARGIN Y.
CONTRIBUTE MORE?
SO THAT THAT IS A COMMENT HERE.
AND AND AND AND IT'S OF THE
OTHERS WILL NEED TO DO SO. WHICH.
BUT.
BUT I'VE HEARD THAT MANY TIMES.
IS A COMMENT I HEARD I'M GONNA
BE HONEST WITH YOU.
I HEAR IT I HEAR A LOT STILL TO
HELP THINK WE CAN ADDRESS IT
BECAUSE IT'S A LIBERAL TRY TO DO
MY BEST TO MAKE HOUSING.
.
HOUSING.
.
SUPPLY AND.
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN CALIFORNIA AND THIS IS PART
OF OUT SO KEEP KEEP IN MIND
URGENT AYE VOTE MISTER CHAIRMAN
AS A CLOSE.
AS YOUR CLOSE THANK YOU WHILE I
ONE APPRECIATE OF BOTH SIDES FOR
A ROBUST DEBATE BUT ON A BILL
THAT I THINK.
WE HIT PLEASE DISCUSSION FIVE
YEARS AGO AND A WEEK CAME TO A
AN AGREEMENT.
FIVE YEARS AGO AND TRUE ENOUGH
THERE WAS A SUNSET IN THAT BILL
BUT.
I REALLY THINK THERE'S STILL A
NEED TO CONTINUE ON AS STATED.
THOSE SAFEGUARDS THAT WERE PUT
IN PLACE FIVE YEARS AGO I THINK
ART SHOULD BE.
EXAMINED IN LOOKED AT I THINK
THERE IS SOME HOPE FOR
COMPROMISE BASED ON WHAT I HEARD
FROM BOTH SIDES THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE ISSUE
THAT I THINK WE ALL AGREE. THE
VIOLIN IMPORTANT NOT ONLY
CALIFORNIANS.
BUT US AS LEGISLATORS AND
INDUSTRY FOLKS AS WELL.
THAT.
CLOSE YOUR MARKET TEN YEARS AGO
WAS HORRIBLE.
SOME OF IT WAS BROUGHT ON BY
CONSUMERS WHO TRULY.
.
WHAT PROPERTIES AT THE REALLY
GONNA FOR BUT AT THE SAME TIME
THERE WERE LENDING INSTITUTIONS
ARE CLEARLY KNEW THEY WERE
MAKING BAD LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS
WHO?
CLEARLY CAN AFFORD SOME OF THOSE
LOANS SO I THINK WE ALL. DICK
LOW BLAME HERE SO LA WITH THAT
UNDERSTANDING I THINK. THIS IS A
VEHICLE THAT'S WORTH CONTINUING
I THINK I HAVE BEEN HURTING OR
STORES OF IT NOT WORKING. AND I
THINK THERE'S MORE.
HOPE AND HOPE THEM BAD TO COME
FROM THIS SO ON. I'M OF THE
MINDSET THAT I HAVE I AM
SUPPORTING THIS BILL AND LOOKING
FOR MOTION UP.
.
TO MOVE TO JUDICIARY PUT.
SO WE WILL MOVE A MOTION BY.
THE SENATE AWAY STILL AMOUNT
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR BRADFORD PIE. I FIGHT
ACT. FIGHT ACT NO GAINES.
GALGIANI.
GALGIANI AYE WESO.
I SO I LARA. FLORA AYE
PORTANTINO.
PORTANTINO I.
AND FIVE.
SKINNER BELL YOUR BILL IS OUT
WILL LEAVE THEM ROLE OPEN FOR
THOSE ABSENT MEMBERS WHO CHOOSE
TO COME BACK. UP BEFORE YOU
BELIEVE MEMBERS WE STILL HAVE
THE CONCERNED CALENDARS SO
CRITIC CALORIES BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR HUESO MEN SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR BRADFORD BY.
I MIGHT ACT.
BY THAT I GAINES. GALGIANI.
GALGIANI AYE WEST AYE AYE HUESO
AYE LARA.
LARA.
LARA AYE PORTANTINO. PORTANTINO
AYE.
THAT SIX THAT.
THE CONCERN KELLER'S DOUBTS
SIX ZERO WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR THOSE
ABSENT MEMBERS WHO CHOOSE TO ADD
ON A OF.
OTHER THAN THAT I THINK THAT
WILL CONCLUDE OUR BUSINESS FOR
TODAY I WILL LEAVE THE ROAD OPEN
FOR THOSE ABSENT MEMBERS WHO
LIKE TO ADD ON THANK YOU
CALDERON.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORLD ONE S. B..
ALIENATING TO.
.
SENATE BILL EIGHT EIGHT TEAM
CHAIR VOTING I SENATOR GAINES.
GAINES NOW.
TO.
OKAY GOES OUT TO.
CONSENT CALENDAR EXCUSE ME DUE
PASSED TO CONSENT CALENDAR TO
JUDICIARY.
SENATOR BRADFORD VOTING AYE
SENATOR GAMES I'VE
GAINES I.
THAT'S OUT SEVEN ZERO.
HOLLABACK INCLUDES OUR BUSINESS
FOR THE DAY.
THE SENATE BANKING AND FINANCE
COMMITTEE STANDS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU