Do Borrower Rights Improve Borrower Outcomes? Evidence from the Foreclosure Process
49 Pages Posted: 17 Dec 2011 Last revised: 10 Apr 2022
There are 2 versions of this paper
Do Borrower Rights Improve Borrower Outcomes? Evidence from the Foreclosure Process
Date Written: December 2011
Abstract
We evaluate laws designed to protect borrowers from foreclosure. We find that these laws delay but do not prevent foreclosures. We first compare states that require lenders to seek judicial permission to foreclose with states that do not. Borrowers in judicial states are no more likely to cure and no more likely to renegotiate their loans, but the delays lead to a build-up in these states of persistently delinquent borrowers, the vast majority of whom eventually lose their homes. We next analyze a "right-to-cure" law instituted in Massachusetts on May 1, 2008. Using a difference-in-differences approach to evaluate the effect of the policy, we compare Massachusetts with neighboring states that did not adopt similar laws. We find that the right-to-cure law lengthens the foreclosure timeline but does not lead to better outcomes for borrowers.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
The Value of Judicial Independence: Evidence from 18th Century England
By Daniel M. Klerman and Paul G. Mahoney
-
Constitutions and Commitment: Evidence on the Relation between Institutions and the Cost of Capital
By Nathan Sussman and Yishay Yafeh
-
Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution
By Peter Temin
-
By Hugh Rockoff
-
Banking as an Emerging Technology: Hoare's Bank 1702-1742
By Hans-joachim Voth and Peter Temin
-
California Banking in the Nineteenth Century: the Art and Method of the Bank of a. Levy
-
By Hans-joachim Voth and Peter Temin
-
By Hans-joachim Voth and Peter Temin