California Foreclosure Modification Act (2012)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 09:58, 20 September 2012 by BaileyL (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
A Foreclosure Modification Act (11-0014) was approved for circulation in California with a circulation deadline of December 27, 2011. However, its sponsors did not submit petition signatures to election officials by the deadline.

To earn a spot on the state's 2012 ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment, sponsors of the initiative would have had to collect 807,615 signatures.

A letter requesting a title and summary for the proposed initiative was signed by David A. Benson and was received by the Attorney General of California's office on June 7, 2011.

Text of measure

See also: Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Ballot title:

Home Mortgage Modification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Official summary:

"Makes home ownership fundamental right. Prohibits lenders from foreclosing on California citizen's personal home. Requires lenders to assist California borrowers not paying on home loans due to financial hardship or illness. Requires lenders to reduce home loan principal to reflect drop in local property value if more than 10 percent, and to reschedule payments, reduce interest rates, and/or refinance without new credit review. Requires lenders to refinance home loans at minimum cost within 45 days of request if loan has been maintained for three years. Provides back property tax assistance to homeowners."

Summary of estimated fiscal impact:

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"The fiscal impacts of some provisions of this measure are uncertain because of potential conflicts with provisions of the U.S. and State Constitutions and federal laws and regulations governing federally chartered lenders. Potential losses to local governments up to a few billion dollars annually in revenues from property taxes and other types of fees and assessments. Potential state costs up to the low billions of dollars annually to replace the loss of property tax revenues now used to meet the Proposition 98 education funding requirement."

External links