Our Own Ruling Class Desperately Wants to Lose This War
Scott Jennings Took the CNN Panel to School on Birthright Citizenship and NATO...
Oh My God, Someone Really Went There About the Artemis II Launch...and It's...
The Reactions to Justice Jackson's Questions During Birthright Citizenship Argument Were G...
Wait, Air Canada's CEO Is Stepping Down Because the Video Statement Wasn't in...
NYPD Snaps 10-Year Losing Streak to FDNY in Charity Hockey Game
Throw Iran to the Wolves
Marie Harf Just Told the World How the Left Really Feels About Women's...
Tony Evers, the So-Called 'Education Governor,' Just Made Wisconsin Classrooms More Danger...
'The View' Panel Thinks It's Reckless to Do What in Trump's America?
Debunking the Lone Wolf 'Myth'
California's Think-Alike Dems Cancel Debate Over 'Lack of Diversity'
Iranian Aggression Demands Return to Abraham Accords Peacemaking
Every Child Has a Mother and Father. Pennsylvania to Pretend Otherwise.
Trump’s Strategic Iranian Oil Balancing Act: Now It's Time to Finish the Job
OPINION

Are Courts Dragging out the Housing Crisis?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Are Courts Dragging out the Housing Crisis?

Despite what looks like a national mortgage market, what we do not have is a national foreclosure process.  Almost all the law that matters in terms of foreclosures is at the state level (which is both good and bad, and it is not clear to me which dominates).  One of the biggest differences is whether a lender has to go before a court to seek a foreclosure, or whether such can be handled administratively.  Although even in administrative states, borrowers do have redress to the courts when things go wrong (besides the actual fact of a foreclosure).

Advertisement

The above chart, put together by the Mortgage Bankers Association, lists states by percentage of loans in some stage of the foreclosure process.  Also listed (color-coded) is which states have a judicial, that is court-driven, foreclosure process and that those that do not.  The most noticeable difference is that, with a few exceptions, the states with the highest percentage of properties still in foreclosure are those with a judicial foreclosure process.  Perhaps most surprising is that states like California and Arizona, which were ground-zero for the housing bubble, have foreclosure inventories, as a percent of loans, below the national average.

A common refrain for slowing the foreclosure process is that such is thought to slow the decline in housing prices.  The facts, as they relate to judicial foreclosures which do take considerably longer, is just the opposite.  Based on state-level price data from Zillow, non-judicial states saw prices fall 3.3% over the course of 2011, whereas prices fell 4.5% in judicial states.  While there’s a lot driving house price declines, it doesn’t look as if the judicial process is helping.  Similar results hold if you date back to the peak of the bubble.  Judicial states have seen, on average declines of about 20%, whereas non-judicial have seen declines of about 17% (not population weighted).

Advertisement

Now, I am a big believer in respecting contracts, and the existing legal environment is part of the contract, so I’m not advocating that states change their foreclosure process for existing loans.  For loans not yet made, however, there appears to me to be the case for at least examining the merits of judicial foreclosure (or even better let borrowers and lenders freely contract to choose their own rules).

Mark A. Calabria • 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement