Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program and Act 91 Notice Requirements Officially Reinstated

On August 9, 2012, Governor Tom Corbett announced the re-start of the Pennsylvania Homeowner’s Emergency Assistance Program (“HEMAP”) administered by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (“PHFA”).  HEMAP  was discontinued in August of 2011 as a result of PHFA’s determination that it lacked the necessary funding for the program.  In June of 2012, Governor Corbett signed the Homeowner Assistance Settlement Act.  This act, among other things, allocates to HEMAP the lion’s share of Pennsylvania’s portion of the cash settlement received in the litigation brought by states and the federal government against the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers for alleged misconduct in connection with home foreclosures.  According to the announcement, Pennsylvania’s share of the funds has been received and PHFA will begin accepting applications for HEMAP immediately.   
    
Another important part of HEMAP is the Notice of Intention to Foreclose, also known as the Act 91 Notice (the “Act 91 Notice”), which a mortgage lender is required to send to the borrower before initiating a foreclosure against the borrower’s home.  The Act 91 Notice provides notice to the borrower of the nature of their default and the time and method to cure such default.  It also informs the borrower of HEMAP and how to apply for assistance under the program.  The requirement to send the Act 91 Notice was suspended at the time HEMAP was discontinued.  As part of the re-start of HEMAP, mortgage lenders will again be required to send the Act 91 Notice before instituting foreclosure in cases where the mortgage is secured by real estate that is the borrower’s primary residence.  In the August 18, 2012 issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin, PHFA published its formal notice of the resumption of HEMAP.  According to the published notice, October 2, 2012 is the official date for resumption of the Act 91 Notice Requirement.  As a result, lenders will not be able to institute foreclosures against a borrower’s home, unless it has sent the borrower an Act 91 Notice and has otherwise complied with the Act 91 Notice requirements.   The form of Act 91 Notice that is required to be sent is the same form notice that was in effect when the notice requirement was suspended in 2011.  A copy of PHFA’s published notice, which includes a copy of the form Act 91 notice is attached to this Alert.  

One obvious timing question raised by this is how to handle loans that become eligible for foreclosure prior to the October 2, 2012 effective date.  If the foreclosure is not filed prior to the effective date, either because it could not be filed (e.g. due to the pendency of another notice period) or for some other reason, the foreclosure will not be able to be filed until the Act 91 Notice is sent and all applicable notice or stay periods have run.  This could delay the process for at least thirty (30) days or more.  A possible solution to this situation would be to begin sending the Act 91 Notices prior to the date such notices are actually required.  Beginning to send the Act 91 Notices no less than 30 days prior to the effective date (i.e., by September 2, 2012)  should alleviate the problem of any “notice gap.”  Also, since PHFA is apparently already accepting applications for HEMAP,  lenders may decide to begin sending the Act 91 Notices as soon as possible after publication of the official notification by PHFA. 

Sending the Act 91 Notice prior to the actual effective date, as outlined above, will serve two purposes.  First, it will make it less likely that a particular foreclosure will fall through the cracks during the transition.  Second, it will comply with PHFA’s request that lenders give notice to homeowners who are currently in the foreclosure process of the possible availability of HEMAP assistance.  Such voluntary notification on the part of mortgage lenders is being encouraged and recommended by some banking and lending organizations as a possible stop-gap to the fear that some courts may unilaterally impose blanket stays on foreclosure proceedings during the transition.

A final area to be discussed involves the inter-relationship between the Act 91 Notice and the notice required under Act 6.  The Notice of Intention to Foreclose under Act 6 (the “Act 6 Notice”) has been a part of the law since before Act 91.  The resumption of requiring the Act 91 Notice does not eliminate Act 6.  However, as was the case before the suspension of Act 91, the Act 6 Notice is not required where the Act 91 Notice is being sent.  Act 91 expressly states that the Act 91 Notice is to be in lieu of any other notices.  The Act 91 Notice also contains all of the information that is required to be included in the Act 6 Notice.  For this reason, it seems clear that where the Act 91 Notice is sent no other notice is required, even where the notice is sent before the effective date of the Act 91 Notice requirement.  Lenders who are concerned that discontinuing the Act 6 Notice prior to the effective date of the Act 91 Notice requirement could open their foreclosures to a technical challenge, may opt to send both notices during that time period.  One other point to keep in mind - Act 6 is not going away.  Where Act 91 does not apply, an Act 6 Notice could still be required where:  a) the real estate being foreclosed upon meets the definition of “residential real estate” under the act; and b) the original mortgage amount is less than the “base figure” (currently $230,110). 

To read the complete notice click here.

Please feel free to contact a member of the Barley Snyder Finance and Creditors Rights Group if you have any questions about this.                 

Property Tax Assessments: Should you appeal?

Do you want to lower your property taxes? Would it surprise you to learn that you could do so at little to no net cost? There may be an opportunity to do exactly this if your property is currently assessed too high. Your property’s tax assessment forms the basis for all of your real estate taxes. The assessment, which is different than the appraised value of your property and in most cases does not equal 100 percent of the fair market value of your property, is established by the County once every few years and remains fixed as property values move up and down. So if your assessment is too high (either because it was originally assessed too high or because of a decrease in your property’s value), you are paying too much in taxes each year that the assessment remains the same. The assessment will remain the same until the property is changed (improvements are added or removed), the County undergoes a county wide reassessment, or your file an appeal of your assessment. County wide reassessments usually occur only once or twice a decade although in some counties, a county wide reassessment has not occurred in nearly 20 years. If you lower your assessment, you will lower your real estate taxes until the next County wide reassessment occurs which could be several years. You are entitled to challenge the assessment every year if you believe the assessment is too high. The amount of costs involved in the appeal are often far less than the total savings you will receive if the appeal is successful.  In most cases, the only costs are an appraisal of the property and legal fees.   
 
To determine whether an appeal is appropriate, you must first estimate what your property is worth. Then, find the common level ratio[1] for your county below:
 
 

  • Adams - 100%
     
  • Berks - 73.2%
     
  • Lancaster - 76.5%
     
  • York - 83.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
[1] The common level ratio is used to determine assessments in the years following a county wide reassessment. In the first two years following the county wide reassessment, your assessment should equal 100 percent of the fair market value of the property. In all subsequent years, the assessment should equal the common level ratio then in effect multiplied by the fair market value. The common level ratio, which is determined by the state, varies by county and changes in July every year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Now multiply your estimated fair market value by the common level ratio. For example, if your property is located in York County and is worth $500,000, multiply $500,000 by .837 and your assessed value should be $418,500. This figure should be close to your assessed value. If it is significantly lower than your assessed value, you may want to consider challenging your assessment. If you are unsure what your assessed value is, check your most recent property tax bill or call your County’s assessment office and ask.
 
Another way to determine if your assessment is too high is to take the assessment and multiply it by the number listed below for the County in which the property is located:
 
 

  • Adams - 1
     
  • Berks - 1.37
     
  • Lancaster - 1.31
     
  • York - 1.19
     
     

Again, if your property is located in York County and is assessed at $500,000, you multiply $500,000 by 1.19 and your property is being taxed as though it is worth $595,000. If the figure is higher than what you believe the property is currently worth, it might make sense to appeal your assessment.
 
So how do you challenge your tax assessment? The process is started by filing an appeal to the County’s Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board will review your assessment and determine if it is too high. For a successful appeal, you will most likely need a recent appraisal of the property. If the Board’s decision is not satisfactory, you can appeal this decision to the Court of Common Pleas which then determines the fair market value and applies the common level ratio to establish your new assessment.
 
Keep in mind that any reduction in your assessment will most likely result in tax savings not just in the year in question but in future years as well. While in general you can not receive a refund for past taxes paid if your assessment is too high, your assessment will be reduced for future years which will save you money. To determine how much savings you could receive, determine your local milage rates and multiply these by the difference between the current assessment and what you believe the assessment should be and you can determine the savings for one year. For example, if the combined millage rates in your municipality (School, County and Municipal millage rates) are 25 mills (or 2.5%), you would save $250 for every $10,000 that you reduce your assessment.
 
Barley Snyder has attorneys with experience handling tax assessment appeals throughout central Pennsylvania. If you believe your assessment is too high, give us a call to see if we can help lower your assessment and lower your taxes.

The Comprehensive Plan; just a planning document?

 In Geryville Materials, Inc. v. DEP, Docket No. 152 MD 2009 DEP issued a letter to Geryville Materials indicating that it was going to suspend review of Geryville Material's permit application for a quarry. DEP suspended its review of the permit application based on a letter from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission ("LVPC") that the proposed quarry was not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Quarry use is a permitted use as a special exception. Geryville Materials is pursuing a special exception. Geryville Materials filed an equity actions in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction seeking an order that required DEP to continue to review its application. The Court in an unreported decision authored by Judge Pellegrini, denied DEP's preliminary objections. The Judge pointed out to DEP that the comprehensive plan is simply a planning document, it was not consistent with the zoning ordinance regarding the proposed use and that DEP misapplied its obligations under Act 67 and Act 68 by suspending its review of the permit application.

Land Application of Biosolids: Limitations on DEP's authority to impose conditions

The Environmental Hearing Board ("EHB") in the case of Douglass Township v. DEP and Synagro (April 2009), determined that the Department did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the Township's request to revise its approval for the land application of biosolids by limiting such land application only to exceptional quality sludge, requiring the applicator to provide advance notice to the Township prior to any land application, providing copies to the Township of any reports to be submitted to the Department and to provide the Township access to the site during any application activity.  The Board determined that the DEP was limited in its ability to impose only such conditions as "are necessary to protect public health and the environment from the adverse effects of pollutants in sewage sludge".  The Board determined that DEP engaged in sufficient consultation and cooperation with the Township prior to issuing its approval of the biosolids application to Synagro. 

 

 

 

 

State Surface Mining Act Does Not Preempt Township Setback

The Commonwealth Court in Hoffman Mining Company v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams, (958 A.2d 602) determined that the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act, 52 P.S. 1396.1 et. seq. ("SMCRA"), does not preempt a Township setback requirement. The Township enacted an ordinance which established a 1000 foot setback for mining activity from residential structures. The Surface Mining Act establishes a 300 foot setback requirement. The Surface Mining Act at 52 P.S. Section 1396.17a incorporates a preemption relating to the regulation of surface mining activity and specifically provides:

Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L. 805, No. 247) known as the "Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code", all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate surface mining are hereby superseded. The Commonwealth by this enactment hereby preempts the regulation of surface mining as herein defined.  

The Court in Hoffman saw the issue as a question of whether the preemption related to all zoning regulations promulgated after the adoption of SMCRA. The Court held that the setback limitation of 1000 feet was a proper zoning requirement, which was not preempted by SMCRA. The Court distinguished the setback limitations at issue in Hoffman from the operational requirements at issue in Warner Co. v. ZHB of Tredyffrin Township, 612 A.2d 578 (Pa. Cmwth 1992). The ordinance at issue in Warner addressed, buffer and berms, storage of overburden and details regarding reclamation of a quarry. The Court in Hoffman viewed the setback limitation as a proper land use control connected to land use planning, rather addressing operational surface mining activity. The Court reasoned that if the Township could properly prohibit a use within a zoning district, it should properly be permitted to take the less onerous step of establishing setback requirements that are more than the 300 foot limit imposed by SMCRA.

Tags: