Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Money Laundering or Assistance with A Mortgage, Robert Paisola Reports

Below is an update on the Down Payment Assistance Front. Recently HUD stated that they were going to do away with the DPA. A DPA is where a seller contributes 3% of the purchase price plus an administration fee to the DPA and the DPA will gift the buyer the down payment.

This program works for FHA loans and that is why HUD is in the middle of it.

A buyer's down payment can be a gift, however the gift cannot be directly from the seller. So this clever little money laundering technique has benefited many of homeowners get a 100% loan but instead of it being a sub-prime adjustable type thing or an interest only for two years and kaboom. The buyer would have a nice 30 year fixed rate with low monthly mortgage insurance.

So here is the deal in action. Billy Buyer makes an offer on Sally Seller's home. The offer has an addendum that says that Sally will contribute 2.5% of the purchase price to pay for the buyer's closing cost. Then Billy Buyer will ask Sally Seller to contribute 3% of the purchase price + a $500 processing fee. So depending on the price of the home, the seller will contribute approximately 6% of the sales price on behalf of the buyer.

Usually the difference is split, meaning the sales price is increased by 3%. The seller agrees to the full 6% concession. SO the buyer gets 100% loan and finances the closing cost.

October 31, 2007


Gaithersburg, MD - United States Federal District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman today ruled in the case of AmeriDream v. Jackson that the Department of Housing and Urban Development cannot implement its regulation on downpayment assistance, which had been scheduled to go into effect today. AmeriDream, Incorporated, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity dedicated to helping low and moderate income families purchase their own homes through the provision of downpayment assistance and other services, had brought suit against HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson challenging the regulation, which would have reversed prior HUD policies regarding downpayment assistance.

Judge Friedman agreed with AmeriDream's position that there was a "substantial likelihood" that the regulation violated applicable law. Judge Friedman further stated that the regulation lacked a "reasoned analysis" and was based on "flimsy" support. Judge Friedman also questioned whether HUD acted appropriately in issuing the regulation in view of a published report that Secretary Jackson was committed to that course of action regardless of whatever public comments HUD would later receive. In view of those shortcomings and other considerations, Judge Friedman issued an injunction, effective immediately, preventing the regulation from taking effect.

No comments:

The Mortgage Fraud Video Archives