Future areas protected from development...
Feds want land bridge between mountains and Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge
By Bruce Finley
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/30/2011 11:45:33 AM MDT
Updated: 09/30/2011 01:25:34 PM MDT
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge on Friday ( THE DENVER POST | Kathryn Scott Osler)
Federal officials today unveiled plans for a complex property swap that will create a land bridge between the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge and the mountains to the west.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers this morning said the plan to cross Colo. 93 at the southwest corner of the 6,240 acre compound will make the difference between the refuge remaining an isolated enclave that is home to mule deer and small predators versus performing a much richer prairie preserve that draws larger ungulates, such as elk, and big predators including black bears and cougars.
The release of the plan triggers a 31-day public comment period.
Fish and Wildlife assumed management of the most of the 9-square mile site in 2007, after the Environmental Protection Agency determined that the cleanup of waste left by manufacturing plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads had been completed.
Since then, the compound east of Colo. 93, between Golden and Boulder, has remained closed to public access because of a lack of funding for management operations. The property is considered critical habitat for the federally threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse. It also contains 1,500 acres of rare xeric tallgrass prairie.
Nearly one third of the compound remains under the control of the U.S. Department of Energy, fenced off and closed due to residual plutonium contamination.
The refuge, one of seven in Colorado, is considered a key link in vision proposed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's America Outdoors program to create a link between Denver and Rocky Mountain National Park. In the metro area, there are two other National Wildlife Refuges, Two Ponds in Arvada and Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a reclaimed mustard gas production facility east of Commerce City.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Vacation rental website claims Colorado towns' tax hunt is "illegal"
interesting article...
business
Vacation rental website claims Colorado towns' tax hunt is "illegal"
By Jason Blevins
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/30/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 09/30/2011 09:21:35 AM MDT
The co-founder of HomeAway.com, the nation's largest online vacation-rental site, says the effort by several Colorado towns to scour the company's websites for homeowners who might not be paying local and state lodging taxes is "patently illegal" and constitutes intellectual-property theft.
"We simply cannot allow the violation of the privacy of our customers," said Carl Shepherd, who this week sent cease-and-desist letters to several towns and the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. " 'Scraping' — and that's what this is — is illegal. Most of the time we are scraped, it's by nefarious guys in Bulgaria or Nigeria who want to do us harm or steal from us. This is an interesting approach by an entity working for governments, saying it's OK to break the law if you are finding people who might not be paying their taxes."
"Scraping" called a violation
Shepherd's letters demand that the Colorado Association of Ski Towns direct its members Winter Park, Grand Lake, Breckenridge, Dillon, Silverthorne and Frisco to cancel contracts with Virginia-based VR Compliance, which is searching several online vacation-rental sites, including HomeAway's, for homeowners who are not paying taxes.
Shepherd argues that the "scraping" violates a "fundamental privacy right" between his company and the Colorado users who advertise through its sites, which include VRBO.com and vacationrentals.com.
When the association first contacted HomeAway.com with its plans to search for rogue renters, Shepherd's team said the plan was illegal, Shepherd said. The company offered to help inform its users about local and state tax codes.
"They said they would help educate people, which we think is truly bunk," said Tim Gagen, town manager for Breckenridge, where VRBO.com first sprouted in 1995. "We don't want education. We want information."
The association, which is an organization of 25 mountain towns that merely directed its members to VR Compliance, and the six towns that are testing the rental search program will not stop their searching.
"VR Compliance assured us they are not in violation of those federal or state scraping laws," said Gagen, who expects the issue is headed to court.
Assertion "interesting"
Katina Banks, an intellectual-property lawyer with Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Denver who is not involved in the dispute, called HomeAway's intellectual-property assertion "interesting" but said she doesn't believe it rises to an intellectual-property claim.
"Without more information, I'm having a hard time seeing the taking of an asset and using of an asset which would constitute an intellectual-property infringement," Banks said.
Banks said it does not appear to be an infringement because the mountain towns and association are not using the information to solicit for property rentals or anything similar.
"They are not reproducing it or distributing it, which would lead to a copyright claim. They are just using it and barring some inappropriate access or claim of theft. I don't believe there is a trade-secret issue here," Banks said.
David Atherton, the owner of VR Compliance, said his program does not expose private data. As an owner of several small technology companies, Atherton said he is "philosophically opposed" to violating privacy agreements between companies and clients.
"I can say without reservation that we don't scrape. We don't hack. We don't steal. We don't misappropriate or otherwise misuse any private data from his or any other website," said Atherton, who has not been contacted by HomeAway.com or seen the cease-and-desist letter.
"We help municipalities level the taxation playing field," Atherton said.
Staff writer Howard Pankratz contributed to this report. Jason Blevins: 303-954-1374 or jblevins@denverpost.com
business
Vacation rental website claims Colorado towns' tax hunt is "illegal"
By Jason Blevins
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/30/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 09/30/2011 09:21:35 AM MDT
The co-founder of HomeAway.com, the nation's largest online vacation-rental site, says the effort by several Colorado towns to scour the company's websites for homeowners who might not be paying local and state lodging taxes is "patently illegal" and constitutes intellectual-property theft.
"We simply cannot allow the violation of the privacy of our customers," said Carl Shepherd, who this week sent cease-and-desist letters to several towns and the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. " 'Scraping' — and that's what this is — is illegal. Most of the time we are scraped, it's by nefarious guys in Bulgaria or Nigeria who want to do us harm or steal from us. This is an interesting approach by an entity working for governments, saying it's OK to break the law if you are finding people who might not be paying their taxes."
"Scraping" called a violation
Shepherd's letters demand that the Colorado Association of Ski Towns direct its members Winter Park, Grand Lake, Breckenridge, Dillon, Silverthorne and Frisco to cancel contracts with Virginia-based VR Compliance, which is searching several online vacation-rental sites, including HomeAway's, for homeowners who are not paying taxes.
Shepherd argues that the "scraping" violates a "fundamental privacy right" between his company and the Colorado users who advertise through its sites, which include VRBO.com and vacationrentals.com.
When the association first contacted HomeAway.com with its plans to search for rogue renters, Shepherd's team said the plan was illegal, Shepherd said. The company offered to help inform its users about local and state tax codes.
"They said they would help educate people, which we think is truly bunk," said Tim Gagen, town manager for Breckenridge, where VRBO.com first sprouted in 1995. "We don't want education. We want information."
The association, which is an organization of 25 mountain towns that merely directed its members to VR Compliance, and the six towns that are testing the rental search program will not stop their searching.
"VR Compliance assured us they are not in violation of those federal or state scraping laws," said Gagen, who expects the issue is headed to court.
Assertion "interesting"
Katina Banks, an intellectual-property lawyer with Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Denver who is not involved in the dispute, called HomeAway's intellectual-property assertion "interesting" but said she doesn't believe it rises to an intellectual-property claim.
"Without more information, I'm having a hard time seeing the taking of an asset and using of an asset which would constitute an intellectual-property infringement," Banks said.
Banks said it does not appear to be an infringement because the mountain towns and association are not using the information to solicit for property rentals or anything similar.
"They are not reproducing it or distributing it, which would lead to a copyright claim. They are just using it and barring some inappropriate access or claim of theft. I don't believe there is a trade-secret issue here," Banks said.
David Atherton, the owner of VR Compliance, said his program does not expose private data. As an owner of several small technology companies, Atherton said he is "philosophically opposed" to violating privacy agreements between companies and clients.
"I can say without reservation that we don't scrape. We don't hack. We don't steal. We don't misappropriate or otherwise misuse any private data from his or any other website," said Atherton, who has not been contacted by HomeAway.com or seen the cease-and-desist letter.
"We help municipalities level the taxation playing field," Atherton said.
Staff writer Howard Pankratz contributed to this report. Jason Blevins: 303-954-1374 or jblevins@denverpost.com
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Check out your County Website for Tax Sale Information
It's that time of year...tax sales are coming up...here's the opening page to the Jefferson County Tax Sale Guidelines...yet feel free to google your County's tax sale website...
Tax Lien Sale
The sale will be held at www.sri-onlineauctions.com
AUCTION FORMAT
The tax lien sale will be held as an Internet auction administered by SRI Incorporated. Tax liens available for bid will be listed on the SRI web site www.sri-onlineauctions.com beginning October 20, 2011 at 9 a.m. Bidding will close hourly in batches of approximately 180 liens per batch. Each page is considered a batch. The first batch (page one) will close at 8:00 a.m. Mountain Time on October 24,2011 and continuing closing each hour until 8:00 p.m. The bidding rules will be posted at least two weeks before the beginning of the actual auction. Two computers will be available for use in the Treasurer main lobby. Questions regarding the operation of the auction should be addressed to SRI at 1-800-800-9588.
Jefferson County Tax Sale Info
Tax Lien Sale
The sale will be held at www.sri-onlineauctions.com
AUCTION FORMAT
The tax lien sale will be held as an Internet auction administered by SRI Incorporated. Tax liens available for bid will be listed on the SRI web site www.sri-onlineauctions.com beginning October 20, 2011 at 9 a.m. Bidding will close hourly in batches of approximately 180 liens per batch. Each page is considered a batch. The first batch (page one) will close at 8:00 a.m. Mountain Time on October 24,2011 and continuing closing each hour until 8:00 p.m. The bidding rules will be posted at least two weeks before the beginning of the actual auction. Two computers will be available for use in the Treasurer main lobby. Questions regarding the operation of the auction should be addressed to SRI at 1-800-800-9588.
Jefferson County Tax Sale Info
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Home prices remain flat in Denver
Home prices remain flat in Denver
By Howard Pankratz
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/27/2011 10:37:11 AM MDT
Updated: 09/27/2011 11:00:17 AM MDT
Home prices in Denver remained flat in July, bucking a national trend which saw 17 of 20 metro areas posting monthly increases in home prices, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index released today.
Las Vegas and Phoenix home prices were down over the month and Denver was unchanged from June, said the report.
Home prices in Denver were down 2.1 percent from one year ago.
A month ago, Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index showed home prices in metropolitan Denver increased 1.6 percent in the second quarter but were down 2.5 from the same period a year ago.
The Denver index is at 125.97 based on a value of 100 in January 2000. This mean that there has been almost a 26 percent appreciation of the typical home in Denver since 2000.
"With July's data we are seeing not only anticipated monthly increases, but some fairly broad improvement in the annual rates of change in home prices," said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at S&P indices. "This is still a seasonal period of stronger demand for houses, so monthly price increases are expected and were seen in 17 of 20 cities.
"The exceptions were Las Vegas and Phoenix where prices fell, while Denver was flat."
He added that while there have been four consecutive months of generally increasing prices, "we do know that we are still far from a sustained recovery.
"Continued increases in home prices through the end of the year and better annual results must materialize before we can confirm a housing market recovery."
By Howard Pankratz
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/27/2011 10:37:11 AM MDT
Updated: 09/27/2011 11:00:17 AM MDT
Home prices in Denver remained flat in July, bucking a national trend which saw 17 of 20 metro areas posting monthly increases in home prices, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index released today.
Las Vegas and Phoenix home prices were down over the month and Denver was unchanged from June, said the report.
Home prices in Denver were down 2.1 percent from one year ago.
A month ago, Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index showed home prices in metropolitan Denver increased 1.6 percent in the second quarter but were down 2.5 from the same period a year ago.
The Denver index is at 125.97 based on a value of 100 in January 2000. This mean that there has been almost a 26 percent appreciation of the typical home in Denver since 2000.
"With July's data we are seeing not only anticipated monthly increases, but some fairly broad improvement in the annual rates of change in home prices," said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at S&P indices. "This is still a seasonal period of stronger demand for houses, so monthly price increases are expected and were seen in 17 of 20 cities.
"The exceptions were Las Vegas and Phoenix where prices fell, while Denver was flat."
He added that while there have been four consecutive months of generally increasing prices, "we do know that we are still far from a sustained recovery.
"Continued increases in home prices through the end of the year and better annual results must materialize before we can confirm a housing market recovery."
Monday, September 26, 2011
House Between A Rock & A Hard Place
Does the economy have you between a rock and a hard place? This house truly is between a rock and a hard place. Call or email me for your real estate buying and selling goals.
Castel-Meur, the famous house between the rocks near the village of Plougrescant in Brittany, France was built in 1861 and still belongs to the descendants of the first owner/builder. It eventually became famous when photos of it were sold as postcards around the world. This attracted more tourists and some began to climb up on the house to be photographed as if it were some sort of statue. This caused damage to the property and prompted the owner to forbid visitation. An interesting house all the same...Enjoy!
Castel-Meur, the famous house between the rocks near the village of Plougrescant in Brittany, France was built in 1861 and still belongs to the descendants of the first owner/builder. It eventually became famous when photos of it were sold as postcards around the world. This attracted more tourists and some began to climb up on the house to be photographed as if it were some sort of statue. This caused damage to the property and prompted the owner to forbid visitation. An interesting house all the same...Enjoy!
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Colorado public trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes
Interesting article....
Colorado public trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes
By David Migoya
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/25/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 09/25/2011 10:13:12 AM MDT
Michael and Ann Rudnick wanted to know that Bank of America was really entitled to foreclose on their Denver home.
After all, the couple had borrowed $265,000 from New Century Mortgage in late 2006, yet it was Bank of America foreclosing three years later.
"They simply wanted to know how Bank of America came to have their mortgage, but they couldn't find out during the foreclosure," said Steven Brunette, the couple's Colorado Springs attorney who's taken up their cause.
The Rudnicks learned that the Legislature years earlier had basically removed a consumer's right to challenge a lender's standing to foreclose on a house.
The changes happened in 2002 and 2006 in paragraphs buried deep inside dense pieces
of legislation designed to shore up Colorado's foreclosure laws. The changes meant banks no longer had to provide original documents at a foreclosure, just affidavits from lawyers saying the bank owned the notes and got them legally.
Interviews and documents reveal that the changes to foreclosure due process in Colorado were drafted and promoted by county public trustees, who serve as administrators of the foreclosure process in Colorado and are supposed to hold as a key objective the protection of the public.
Such a failure of oversight prompted one housing official to question the competence of the trustees and the foreclosure process they oversee, a system that's unique in the country.
Others say the foreclosure process has become so heavily weighted in favor of lenders and their lawyers — much of it with the help of the trustees — that homeowners stand little chance of finding fairness in a system that's supposed to ensure equal justice.
"For all the good they bring to the table, this illustrates they are more a process trustee than a public trustee," said Zak Urban, director of housing counseling at the Adams County Housing Authority who often works with the trustees. "They put the
integrity of the process over the public interest."
Other trustees, who worked with foreclosure lawyers such as Larry Castle and Robert Hopp on the legislation, say they aren't sure how the changes occurred at all.
"I'd hate to think we were that lax, that we would have not noticed something that was trying to make its way under our noses," said Peggy Foley, former Pueblo County public trustee who sat on the committee of the Public Trustees' Association of Colorado that crafted the 2006 legislation. "I'd like to think someone would have pointed it out."
Now, to question a bank's entitlement to a foreclosure, consumers like the Rudnicks must file expensive and often time-consuming private lawsuits that aren't likely
to yield a result until long after the house is auctioned.
"The idea was clearly to facilitate the rapid repossession of collateral," said Boulder attorney Mark Hofgard, who specializes in representing homeowners facing foreclosure.
Critics say Colorado has since become a state where it takes little more than a lawyer's signature to take someone's home.
"It may be true they deserve to be foreclosed on, but there is the over-arching integrity of the system that's important," said Jan Zavislan, an assistant attorney general who runs that office's consumer protection division. "Has the system broken down to such a point that it has no credibility any longer? Maybe no one's hurt except the public trust and confidence. But we need them."
Unique trustee system
Colorado foreclosure laws require a judge to review and approve the public auction of a house. Called a Rule 120 hearing, it's the only time a judge is part of Colorado's foreclosure process. Instead, it is overseen entirely by a public trustee in the county where the foreclosure happens.
The governor appoints 10 of the trustees, two others are appointed by county officials where they serve and the remaining 52 are the county's elected treasurer.
No other state does it this way. Some states rely entirely on the courts and others use private trustees hired by the lenders.
Until 1989 Colorado homeowners could only defend themselves against a foreclosure at a Rule 120 hearing by proving they weren't in default on the loan or were in the active military.
That changed, however, with a Colorado Supreme Court decision that said homeowners had the right to challenge whether the foreclosing party was legally entitled to go after their house.
Few homeowners challenged, however.
"We were dealing with parties who knew the process and all their documents had the appearance of validity," former Boulder County Public Trustee Sandy Humesaid. "Nobody went to court (for a Rule 120 hearing). The documents were that strong and valid."
Colorado law was crystal clear: Foreclosing parties had to provide original documents in order to take someone's house: notes, deeds of trust and their assignments.
But subtle changes in favor of the banks began in 2002.
State officials at the time were looking to curb rampant foreclosure scams that took advantage of either the homeowner or the foreclosure process, Zavislan recalled.
Taking cues from the public trustees, the Colorado legislature passed a bill that re-wrote significant portions of the foreclosure statutes. The bill was drafted largely by Colorado's top foreclosure lawyers in conjunction with the trustees, according to testimony Castle gave to legislators.
But in addition to combating the scams, the legislation included a critical new provision: foreclosure attorneys could attest in writing that their client — a bank or other lender — actually possessed the note or deed of trust to a house they were foreclosing.
For the first time, a bank no longer had to provide an original deed of trust or note in order to foreclose, though they still had to show the original assignments — the proof that one bank sold a note to another, giving it the right to foreclose.
Undocumented leanings
The legislation also included an indemnity clause protecting the public trustees if the lawyers' certifications were wrong. The trustees backed the measure along with Castle, who told legislators he helped draft the legislation.
No one testified against the bill.
By then, the buying and selling of mortgages had become a common practice. Banks and other loan originators that provided mortgages to home buyers sold their loans, instead of holding onto those mortgages as had been customary for decades. The buyers of those loans bundled them into securities and sold them to other investors, often making it difficult to determine who actually owned the mortgage on an individual home.
The super-heated housing market collapsed in Colorado in 2006. That year, the state had more foreclosure filings than any other and was among the leaders for years after.
As Colorado struggled under the weight of its housing losses, the public trustees said they were trying to streamline the foreclosure process to make it easier for homeowners to protect their property.
Once again, the trustees started tinkering with Colorado's foreclosure laws — and the same few lawyers were there to assist.
"We were trying to restructure things so it was better for the homeowner," former Broomfield County trustee Roxy Huber recalls.
What the trustees aimed for and got with the help of a committee of foreclosure lawyers with the Colorado Bar Association — Castle and Hopp among them — was a longer period of time for homeowners to "cure" their debt or pay what they owed before the house was sold at auction.
What they also got was a paragraph that said lawyers no longer had to show the original assignments of a note to prove a lender actually owned it.
Suddenly, with just a lawyer's signature, a bank could foreclose on a house without ever showing any proof that it had the right to do so.
Although trustees involved in the process today say they can't recall the paragraph, trustees association meeting minutes indicate there was concern with how the bill was being drafted.
Christina Whitmer, the Grand County public trustee, "voiced concern that each time a new draft is received, changes appear that had not been discussed or approved at the prior meeting with the Bar committee," association minutes reflect, and "suggested that the Public Trustee committee take over the drafting."
Records show Hume, who at the time was Boulder County's trustee, was firm: "No matter who is doing the drafting, this is still to be a Public Trustees' bill."
Despite the concerns, minutes show Hopp "defended having attorneys doing the drafting, stating that they are better qualified to properly word the changes."
Hopp later testified on behalf of the bill.
Whitmer recalled in an interview a process that allowed the lawyers to run roughshod over the trustees.
"Unfortunately Castle and the other lawyers were very powerful and they, in my opinion, put in a lot of stuff that should not have happened," Whitmer said. "And it was to benefit their lender clients, absolutely."
Neither Castle nor Hopp returned calls for comment.
Bill sponsor and then-Rep. Michael Garcia of Aurora pressed his colleagues to pass the legislation, saying it would help consumers.
Garcia said that "the main provision of the bill is to eliminate the redemption period and to extend the cure period," according to notes from the April 2006 House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor hearing.
His testimony, and that of the trustees and Zavislan, was that Colorado needed better ammunition to battle mortgage fraud and this bill would do it.
There was no mention made of the provision allowing lawyers to attest to the assignments.
Garcia did not return a call for comment.
Zavislan said he wasn't aware of the provision that would hurt consumers, only those that helped.
"That was our focus," he said.
Gov. Bill Owens signed the bill into law June 1, 2006, effective a month later.
"I'm surprised that it happened under our nose; it shouldn't," said Jeannie Reeser, former public trustee for Adams County. "I'm old school. It shouldn't be this easy to foreclose on someone's home."
Who owns this home?
Years later, the Rudnicks would have to take Bank of America to court and spend more than two years trying to have the lender prove it was entitled to foreclose on them. During the process, they lost their house in foreclosure.
"When someone is going to lose their house, they have to litigate when they are least able to afford to," said Brunette, the Rudnicks' attorney. "It was two years of litigation just to get something they should have produced up front."
It's unclear if the bank ever produced the proof. The case settled earlier this month and all details were sealed.
"It's pathetic how unfair it's all become," Whitmer said. "There's story after story about people being hurt because the lawyers are not presenting the original documents. The integrity is gone and we have to fix this.
"I'm just not sure if we ever can."
Colorado public trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes
By David Migoya
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/25/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 09/25/2011 10:13:12 AM MDT
Michael and Ann Rudnick wanted to know that Bank of America was really entitled to foreclose on their Denver home.
After all, the couple had borrowed $265,000 from New Century Mortgage in late 2006, yet it was Bank of America foreclosing three years later.
"They simply wanted to know how Bank of America came to have their mortgage, but they couldn't find out during the foreclosure," said Steven Brunette, the couple's Colorado Springs attorney who's taken up their cause.
The Rudnicks learned that the Legislature years earlier had basically removed a consumer's right to challenge a lender's standing to foreclose on a house.
The changes happened in 2002 and 2006 in paragraphs buried deep inside dense pieces
of legislation designed to shore up Colorado's foreclosure laws. The changes meant banks no longer had to provide original documents at a foreclosure, just affidavits from lawyers saying the bank owned the notes and got them legally.
Interviews and documents reveal that the changes to foreclosure due process in Colorado were drafted and promoted by county public trustees, who serve as administrators of the foreclosure process in Colorado and are supposed to hold as a key objective the protection of the public.
Such a failure of oversight prompted one housing official to question the competence of the trustees and the foreclosure process they oversee, a system that's unique in the country.
Others say the foreclosure process has become so heavily weighted in favor of lenders and their lawyers — much of it with the help of the trustees — that homeowners stand little chance of finding fairness in a system that's supposed to ensure equal justice.
"For all the good they bring to the table, this illustrates they are more a process trustee than a public trustee," said Zak Urban, director of housing counseling at the Adams County Housing Authority who often works with the trustees. "They put the
integrity of the process over the public interest."
Other trustees, who worked with foreclosure lawyers such as Larry Castle and Robert Hopp on the legislation, say they aren't sure how the changes occurred at all.
"I'd hate to think we were that lax, that we would have not noticed something that was trying to make its way under our noses," said Peggy Foley, former Pueblo County public trustee who sat on the committee of the Public Trustees' Association of Colorado that crafted the 2006 legislation. "I'd like to think someone would have pointed it out."
Now, to question a bank's entitlement to a foreclosure, consumers like the Rudnicks must file expensive and often time-consuming private lawsuits that aren't likely
to yield a result until long after the house is auctioned.
"The idea was clearly to facilitate the rapid repossession of collateral," said Boulder attorney Mark Hofgard, who specializes in representing homeowners facing foreclosure.
Critics say Colorado has since become a state where it takes little more than a lawyer's signature to take someone's home.
"It may be true they deserve to be foreclosed on, but there is the over-arching integrity of the system that's important," said Jan Zavislan, an assistant attorney general who runs that office's consumer protection division. "Has the system broken down to such a point that it has no credibility any longer? Maybe no one's hurt except the public trust and confidence. But we need them."
Unique trustee system
Colorado foreclosure laws require a judge to review and approve the public auction of a house. Called a Rule 120 hearing, it's the only time a judge is part of Colorado's foreclosure process. Instead, it is overseen entirely by a public trustee in the county where the foreclosure happens.
The governor appoints 10 of the trustees, two others are appointed by county officials where they serve and the remaining 52 are the county's elected treasurer.
No other state does it this way. Some states rely entirely on the courts and others use private trustees hired by the lenders.
Until 1989 Colorado homeowners could only defend themselves against a foreclosure at a Rule 120 hearing by proving they weren't in default on the loan or were in the active military.
That changed, however, with a Colorado Supreme Court decision that said homeowners had the right to challenge whether the foreclosing party was legally entitled to go after their house.
Few homeowners challenged, however.
"We were dealing with parties who knew the process and all their documents had the appearance of validity," former Boulder County Public Trustee Sandy Humesaid. "Nobody went to court (for a Rule 120 hearing). The documents were that strong and valid."
Colorado law was crystal clear: Foreclosing parties had to provide original documents in order to take someone's house: notes, deeds of trust and their assignments.
But subtle changes in favor of the banks began in 2002.
State officials at the time were looking to curb rampant foreclosure scams that took advantage of either the homeowner or the foreclosure process, Zavislan recalled.
Taking cues from the public trustees, the Colorado legislature passed a bill that re-wrote significant portions of the foreclosure statutes. The bill was drafted largely by Colorado's top foreclosure lawyers in conjunction with the trustees, according to testimony Castle gave to legislators.
But in addition to combating the scams, the legislation included a critical new provision: foreclosure attorneys could attest in writing that their client — a bank or other lender — actually possessed the note or deed of trust to a house they were foreclosing.
For the first time, a bank no longer had to provide an original deed of trust or note in order to foreclose, though they still had to show the original assignments — the proof that one bank sold a note to another, giving it the right to foreclose.
Undocumented leanings
The legislation also included an indemnity clause protecting the public trustees if the lawyers' certifications were wrong. The trustees backed the measure along with Castle, who told legislators he helped draft the legislation.
No one testified against the bill.
By then, the buying and selling of mortgages had become a common practice. Banks and other loan originators that provided mortgages to home buyers sold their loans, instead of holding onto those mortgages as had been customary for decades. The buyers of those loans bundled them into securities and sold them to other investors, often making it difficult to determine who actually owned the mortgage on an individual home.
The super-heated housing market collapsed in Colorado in 2006. That year, the state had more foreclosure filings than any other and was among the leaders for years after.
As Colorado struggled under the weight of its housing losses, the public trustees said they were trying to streamline the foreclosure process to make it easier for homeowners to protect their property.
Once again, the trustees started tinkering with Colorado's foreclosure laws — and the same few lawyers were there to assist.
"We were trying to restructure things so it was better for the homeowner," former Broomfield County trustee Roxy Huber recalls.
What the trustees aimed for and got with the help of a committee of foreclosure lawyers with the Colorado Bar Association — Castle and Hopp among them — was a longer period of time for homeowners to "cure" their debt or pay what they owed before the house was sold at auction.
What they also got was a paragraph that said lawyers no longer had to show the original assignments of a note to prove a lender actually owned it.
Suddenly, with just a lawyer's signature, a bank could foreclose on a house without ever showing any proof that it had the right to do so.
Although trustees involved in the process today say they can't recall the paragraph, trustees association meeting minutes indicate there was concern with how the bill was being drafted.
Christina Whitmer, the Grand County public trustee, "voiced concern that each time a new draft is received, changes appear that had not been discussed or approved at the prior meeting with the Bar committee," association minutes reflect, and "suggested that the Public Trustee committee take over the drafting."
Records show Hume, who at the time was Boulder County's trustee, was firm: "No matter who is doing the drafting, this is still to be a Public Trustees' bill."
Despite the concerns, minutes show Hopp "defended having attorneys doing the drafting, stating that they are better qualified to properly word the changes."
Hopp later testified on behalf of the bill.
Whitmer recalled in an interview a process that allowed the lawyers to run roughshod over the trustees.
"Unfortunately Castle and the other lawyers were very powerful and they, in my opinion, put in a lot of stuff that should not have happened," Whitmer said. "And it was to benefit their lender clients, absolutely."
Neither Castle nor Hopp returned calls for comment.
Bill sponsor and then-Rep. Michael Garcia of Aurora pressed his colleagues to pass the legislation, saying it would help consumers.
Garcia said that "the main provision of the bill is to eliminate the redemption period and to extend the cure period," according to notes from the April 2006 House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor hearing.
His testimony, and that of the trustees and Zavislan, was that Colorado needed better ammunition to battle mortgage fraud and this bill would do it.
There was no mention made of the provision allowing lawyers to attest to the assignments.
Garcia did not return a call for comment.
Zavislan said he wasn't aware of the provision that would hurt consumers, only those that helped.
"That was our focus," he said.
Gov. Bill Owens signed the bill into law June 1, 2006, effective a month later.
"I'm surprised that it happened under our nose; it shouldn't," said Jeannie Reeser, former public trustee for Adams County. "I'm old school. It shouldn't be this easy to foreclose on someone's home."
Who owns this home?
Years later, the Rudnicks would have to take Bank of America to court and spend more than two years trying to have the lender prove it was entitled to foreclose on them. During the process, they lost their house in foreclosure.
"When someone is going to lose their house, they have to litigate when they are least able to afford to," said Brunette, the Rudnicks' attorney. "It was two years of litigation just to get something they should have produced up front."
It's unclear if the bank ever produced the proof. The case settled earlier this month and all details were sealed.
"It's pathetic how unfair it's all become," Whitmer said. "There's story after story about people being hurt because the lawyers are not presenting the original documents. The integrity is gone and we have to fix this.
"I'm just not sure if we ever can."
Long-contentious plans to build village near Wolf Creek Ski Area may get underway after wetlands exchange
interesting article on a long-time battle...
business
Long-contentious plans to build village near Wolf Creek Ski Area may get underway after wetlands exchange
By Jason Blevins
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/25/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Forest Service Ranger Tom Malecek addresses the more than 100 people who showed up last week to tour the area near the Wolf Creek Ski Area where a proposed village would be developed. (Jason Blevins, The Denver Post)WOLF CREEK PASS — Officials expected fewer than 50, but more than 100 people showed up for a recent Forest Service tour of the proposed land exchange atop Wolf Creek Pass, where a Texas billionaire has labored for a quarter century to erect a village.
The backpacked throng lingered in wetlands, meadows and dense timber as Rio Grande National Forest Divide District Ranger Tom Malecek held maps and answered questions about the land exchange proposed by B.J. "Red" McCombs, the octogenarian Texas businessman who has planned a village next to the Wolf Creek Ski Area since the mid-1980s.
At each stop, voices climbed and emotions flared as the uneasy mixture of environmentalists, local, state and federal officials, and
(Click to enlarge map)McCombs employees discussed Colorado's most contentious mountain real estate project.
"There's no doubt this stirs passions," said Malecek, standing next to a remote pond that could be a centerpiece for a 1,711-unit to 1,980-unit village. "But I think it's nice to get out and have these kinds of discussions."
Since 1985, when McCombs first negotiated a federal land exchange that gave him an island of 288 acres of high-alpine forest, wetlands and meadows in Mineral County adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area and surrounded by federal land, the billionaire has been vying for a village. McCombs' most problematic issue has been reaching his isolated parcel, which does not have road access in the winter and does not reach U.S. 160. The developer is entitled to reasonable access under federal law commensurate with the proposed use of the land.
The proposed land exchange would deliver that access by swapping 204 acres of federal land for 178 acres of McCombs' land. The swap would give the federal government a swath of crucial wetlands and pull the village away from the ski area boundary and provide access to U.S. 160. The exchange is undergoing an environmental impact statement review by the Forest Service, which expects a draft of the statement early next year.
"We are getting more wetlands and (development) has moved away from potential building conflicts and scenic view corridors of the ski area. It gets it a little bit further away so it's not in your face," Malecek said of the proposed exchange.
Clint Jones, the Texas real estate attorney and longtime Wolf Creek skier in charge of the village project, said the land exchange came after years of often fiery discussions with locals, environmentalists, federal officials and the ski-area owners, the Pitcher clan. Jones said the exchange mitigates "issues that were so very volatile" in previous proposals for development.
"We can still build a village on the land we own, but we think we can build a better village back here in the trees," said Jones, whose proposed land exchange moves development from a sweeping meadow — Alberta Park — into dense timber farther east of the Wolf Creek Ski Area.
The land exchange is the latest iteration of a plan that has raised hackles for more than 25 years.
Back in 1985, it was a small proposal, with a warren of fancy homes and small hotel that enlisted support of the ski area's owner, Kingsbury Pitcher and his family, who bought the bankrupt ski hill in 1976.
But modest plans quickly blossomed into a commercial-residential city with nearly 2,200 units and at least 160,000 square feet of commercial space, a high-density proposal that has long galvanized vehement opposition. Those opponents included the Pitchers, who sued the McCombs team in 2004, five years after the family and McCombs had forged easements that allowed for ski terrain on McCombs' land.
The two sides settled the lawsuit in 2008, with the pair sculpting new easements that stopped home development on roughly 104 acres McCombs owns inside the ski area boundary, leaving about 60 to 70 acres in Alberta Park open for development.
Today, ski area president Davey Pitcher supports the land exchange but is reserving judgment on the proposed village, which has yet to be specifically detailed under the draft environmental impact statement review and would require a host of additional state transportation and Mineral County permits and approvals.
"We think the land exchange makes sense. The historical preservation of skiable terrain is important to us and it's a better chance to protect these wetlands," Pitcher said as he reclined in the soggy meadow that would be delivered to the federal government under the exchange."The village, if it's built, will have to stand on its own merits. Our job is to support and promote recreational skiing and . . . we think the land exchange can help us do that."
The latest village proposal is a blending of previous plans. If the land swap is approved, McCombs is proposing about 1,700 units. If not, the number could climb closer to 2,000. The plan calls for phased construction, with development occurring only after strong demand for earlier units.
"Once this gets through approval, it could be much smaller," Jones said. "The market will determine if we go past the first phase."
Environmental group Rocky Mountain Wild — formerly Colorado Wild — has been fighting McCombs for more than a decade. Spearheading a swarm of environmental opposition, the group has illuminated village development issues concerning water supply and quality, endangered wildlife such as the Canadian lynx and socioeconomic issues in nearby towns like South Fork and Pagosa Springs.
Paul Joyce, the group's field program director, said the proposed land exchange swaps undevelopable wetlands for developable land and should not be approved. Mountain towns already are enduring slowing real estate sales, low visitation and dwindling occupancy in hotels, "So why build more? Especially here?" Joyce said.
Still, some locals from both sides of the pass are beginning to see the benefits of another tourist destination in the struggling economy.
"We've got so many problems down in South Fork. Businesses just don't last," said Rich Martin, a Denver firefighter who owns vacation property in South Fork. "This can bring more people and it could help the economy, but I understand the concerns about water. We do live downstream."
business
Long-contentious plans to build village near Wolf Creek Ski Area may get underway after wetlands exchange
By Jason Blevins
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/25/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Forest Service Ranger Tom Malecek addresses the more than 100 people who showed up last week to tour the area near the Wolf Creek Ski Area where a proposed village would be developed. (Jason Blevins, The Denver Post)WOLF CREEK PASS — Officials expected fewer than 50, but more than 100 people showed up for a recent Forest Service tour of the proposed land exchange atop Wolf Creek Pass, where a Texas billionaire has labored for a quarter century to erect a village.
The backpacked throng lingered in wetlands, meadows and dense timber as Rio Grande National Forest Divide District Ranger Tom Malecek held maps and answered questions about the land exchange proposed by B.J. "Red" McCombs, the octogenarian Texas businessman who has planned a village next to the Wolf Creek Ski Area since the mid-1980s.
At each stop, voices climbed and emotions flared as the uneasy mixture of environmentalists, local, state and federal officials, and
(Click to enlarge map)McCombs employees discussed Colorado's most contentious mountain real estate project.
"There's no doubt this stirs passions," said Malecek, standing next to a remote pond that could be a centerpiece for a 1,711-unit to 1,980-unit village. "But I think it's nice to get out and have these kinds of discussions."
Since 1985, when McCombs first negotiated a federal land exchange that gave him an island of 288 acres of high-alpine forest, wetlands and meadows in Mineral County adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area and surrounded by federal land, the billionaire has been vying for a village. McCombs' most problematic issue has been reaching his isolated parcel, which does not have road access in the winter and does not reach U.S. 160. The developer is entitled to reasonable access under federal law commensurate with the proposed use of the land.
The proposed land exchange would deliver that access by swapping 204 acres of federal land for 178 acres of McCombs' land. The swap would give the federal government a swath of crucial wetlands and pull the village away from the ski area boundary and provide access to U.S. 160. The exchange is undergoing an environmental impact statement review by the Forest Service, which expects a draft of the statement early next year.
"We are getting more wetlands and (development) has moved away from potential building conflicts and scenic view corridors of the ski area. It gets it a little bit further away so it's not in your face," Malecek said of the proposed exchange.
Clint Jones, the Texas real estate attorney and longtime Wolf Creek skier in charge of the village project, said the land exchange came after years of often fiery discussions with locals, environmentalists, federal officials and the ski-area owners, the Pitcher clan. Jones said the exchange mitigates "issues that were so very volatile" in previous proposals for development.
"We can still build a village on the land we own, but we think we can build a better village back here in the trees," said Jones, whose proposed land exchange moves development from a sweeping meadow — Alberta Park — into dense timber farther east of the Wolf Creek Ski Area.
The land exchange is the latest iteration of a plan that has raised hackles for more than 25 years.
Back in 1985, it was a small proposal, with a warren of fancy homes and small hotel that enlisted support of the ski area's owner, Kingsbury Pitcher and his family, who bought the bankrupt ski hill in 1976.
But modest plans quickly blossomed into a commercial-residential city with nearly 2,200 units and at least 160,000 square feet of commercial space, a high-density proposal that has long galvanized vehement opposition. Those opponents included the Pitchers, who sued the McCombs team in 2004, five years after the family and McCombs had forged easements that allowed for ski terrain on McCombs' land.
The two sides settled the lawsuit in 2008, with the pair sculpting new easements that stopped home development on roughly 104 acres McCombs owns inside the ski area boundary, leaving about 60 to 70 acres in Alberta Park open for development.
Today, ski area president Davey Pitcher supports the land exchange but is reserving judgment on the proposed village, which has yet to be specifically detailed under the draft environmental impact statement review and would require a host of additional state transportation and Mineral County permits and approvals.
"We think the land exchange makes sense. The historical preservation of skiable terrain is important to us and it's a better chance to protect these wetlands," Pitcher said as he reclined in the soggy meadow that would be delivered to the federal government under the exchange."The village, if it's built, will have to stand on its own merits. Our job is to support and promote recreational skiing and . . . we think the land exchange can help us do that."
The latest village proposal is a blending of previous plans. If the land swap is approved, McCombs is proposing about 1,700 units. If not, the number could climb closer to 2,000. The plan calls for phased construction, with development occurring only after strong demand for earlier units.
"Once this gets through approval, it could be much smaller," Jones said. "The market will determine if we go past the first phase."
Environmental group Rocky Mountain Wild — formerly Colorado Wild — has been fighting McCombs for more than a decade. Spearheading a swarm of environmental opposition, the group has illuminated village development issues concerning water supply and quality, endangered wildlife such as the Canadian lynx and socioeconomic issues in nearby towns like South Fork and Pagosa Springs.
Paul Joyce, the group's field program director, said the proposed land exchange swaps undevelopable wetlands for developable land and should not be approved. Mountain towns already are enduring slowing real estate sales, low visitation and dwindling occupancy in hotels, "So why build more? Especially here?" Joyce said.
Still, some locals from both sides of the pass are beginning to see the benefits of another tourist destination in the struggling economy.
"We've got so many problems down in South Fork. Businesses just don't last," said Rich Martin, a Denver firefighter who owns vacation property in South Fork. "This can bring more people and it could help the economy, but I understand the concerns about water. We do live downstream."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
