Salem Media to Be Acquired by WaterStone in Major Growth Deal
Disappointment Doesn't Come Close to Describing What Just Happened in South Carolina
Scott Jennings Couldn't Let This Insane Take on Redistricting Slide on CNN Last...
The Story of the Reporter Who Attacked Kash Patel Just Took a Wild...
HHS Secretary Marty Makary to Resign Today
AOC Bashes MTG As Progressives Seek Common Ground
Here's Why a Catholic Counselor Is Suing the State of Oregon
Twin Cities Voters Are Learning the Consequences of Minimum Wage Laws
This Is How You Know Hakeem Jeffries Is Losing His 'Maximum Warfare' Battle
Karen Bass and Nithya Raman Bailed on the Next L.A. Mayoral Debate; Spencer...
Marco Rubio to Attend China Summit With Trump, Even Though the Country Banned...
Kash Patel Claps Back in Fiery Senate Hearing As Chris Van Hollen Accuses...
Kuwait Confirms Iranian Security Breach at Strategic Port Project
US Appeals Court Restores President Trump's Second Round of Tariffs
ICE Uncovered a Massive Immigration Fraud Scheme
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