The Recession Is Over? Hamilton County Families Are Still In Foreclosure

Transcription

1 The Recession Is Over? Hamilton County Families Are Still In Foreclosure A Study of in March 29, ,940 Mortgage in Hamilton County in 1814 Dreman Avenue, Cincinnati, OH *

2 Introduction The Recession Is Over? Hamilton County Families Are Still In Foreclosure is Working In Neighborhood s (WIN) eighth foreclosure study in the past nine years. The first report was released during a Foreclosure Crisis Forum held in May 2003 and since 2006 WIN has released follow up studies and hosted foreclosure forums annually. WIN s past reports include: The Silent Crisis in Our Neighborhoods: A Study of in Hamilton County in 2002 Our Vacant Neighborhoods: A Study of in Hamilton County in 2003 Homeownership Is It a Fading American Dream? A Study of in Hamilton County in 2005 with Selected Information from 2004 The American Dream Continues to Fade! A Study of in Hamilton County in 2006 A Faded Dream Leads to Vacant Neighborhoods: The Crisis of Housing in 2007 in Hamilton County The Crisis Next Door: A Study of in Hamilton County in 2008 The Failing Economy = The Continuing Crisis Next Door: A Study of in Hamilton County in 2009 The economic downturn that began in late 2007 has continued to affect homeowners throughout. High rates of unemployment and underemployment were again major causes of delinquency and foreclosure. While Hamilton County experienced a decline in the total number of first filings, both foreclosure listings and completed sales were up from Around 67% of municipalities in Hamilton County and 48% of neighborhoods in the City of Cincinnati experienced an increase in completed foreclosures in. As in previous years, an increasing number of foreclosures have taken place outside of the low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The City of Cincinnati has seen a decreasing share of foreclosures over the past six years while the suburban municipalities share increases. Foreclosure continues to be a problem that affects every place in Hamilton County, from the largest municipalities to the smallest neighborhoods. Properties often take well over a year to make it through the full foreclosure process and real estate owned (REO) or lender owned properties may take a long time to be sold to third parties and be occupied again. As a result, at any given time there is an estimated two year inventory of foreclosed properties in Hamilton County. Figure 1 shows all of the completed foreclosures that have occurred within Hamilton County in the previous two years, with 2009 s foreclosures displayed as red dots and s as blue dots. These 5,580 properties amount to 1.67% of all occupied housing units in the county being foreclosed within the past two years. See Appendix A, Table 1 for more information. Appendix A, Figure 1 displays the City of Cincinnati s previous two years of completed foreclosures. 2

3 Figure 1: Hamilton County, 2009 & 3

4 As taxpayers and neighbors, all of us bear the burden of the hidden costs of foreclosure even if we have not been directly affected ourselves. Families are losing their homes and their connections to their communities. Neighborhoods are becoming more deteriorated and less welcoming places and neighboring property values are decreasing in turn. Municipalities are facing overwhelming financial burdens to inspect, police, maintain, and demolish foreclosed and vacant properties. Working in Neighborhoods continues to work with community groups, public officials and lenders to address the problem of rising foreclosures. Through advocacy and intervention on behalf of borrowers facing the loss of their homes, WIN s Homeowner Preservation Program and its partnerships with several state and local initiatives has helped many families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. Data Sources Foreclosure Data: All foreclosure data used in this report was retrieved from The Cincinnati Court Index and recorded to the best of our ability. The Cincinnati Court Index s Sheriff Sale Listing is released each Monday to announce properties that will be sold at foreclosure five weeks later. For each foreclosure listing, we designated the party named as Plaintiff as the lender responsible for filing the foreclosure, regardless of whether another institution had originated or serviced the loan in the past Geographic Data: We relied on information provided by CAGIS, the Hamilton County Auditor s website, Google Maps, and the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County to determine the geographic locations of foreclosed properties, determine neighborhood and community boundaries, and establish census tract boundaries used in part of our analysis. Parent Companies of Lenders: Mortgage lenders were listed under their respective parent companies based on information provided by the National Information Center of the Federal Reserve. A list of all lenders with five of more completed foreclosures in is included in Appendix D, Table 1. Time Period: This report is based on Hamilton County properties listed for Sheriff Sale between January 1, and December 31, and Sheriff Sale Results between January 28, and January 20,

5 Key Findings In, there were 6,556 new foreclosure filings in Hamilton County, representing a decrease of two percent from This figure initially seems promising, however both listed and completed foreclosures (sales) rose in. There were 5,849 foreclosures listed for sale and of those 2,940 were sold throughout the year. See Table 1 for more detail about foreclosures from 2005 to Filings Listings Sales Table 1: Hamilton County, In Figure 2 below, first filings, Sheriff Sale listings, and completed sales for the past six years are displayed. Figure 3 shows the trends in percentages of filings eventually listed and sold and in listings sold. From these two figures, we can see a change in how properties have advanced through the foreclosure process in recent years Filings Listings Sales Figure 2: Hamilton County, While filings, listings, and sales have all increased, they have not done so proportionately. The number of initial foreclosure filings has increased by about 23% from 2005 to. In this same time period, listings have gone up 40% and sales only 12%. This means more properties that enter the foreclosure process are making it to the listing phase, though sales of these properties have remained fairly consistent over the period. More and more, unsold properties 5

6 are being relisted multiple times and this also accounts for part of the increase in the number of listings when compared with sales. For more detail about this development, see the Relistings section. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Filings: % Listed Listings: % Sold Filings: % Sold Figure 3: Trends in Filings, Listings, and Sales As shown in Figure 3, the number of foreclosure filings progressing to the listings stage increased dramatically between 2005 and 2006 and more moderately since then. This indicates that Hamilton County homeowners have continued to face strong economic hardships that have put their homes in danger. More homeowners who are delinquent in their mortgage payments have seen their homes progress to the listing stage though the percentage of completed foreclosure sales in relation to both filings and listings has decreased. This indicates that an increasing percentage of homeowners have managed to avoid losing their homes to foreclosure. Appraised Value Sales Price Sales Price % of Value All $107, $80, Bought By Plaintiff $103, $77, Bought By Third Party $134, $102, Table 2: Sales Prices by Buyer In, WIN began tracking more sales information including the appraised property value for Sheriff Sale and final sales price. The average appraised value for a property that eventually sold was $107, while the average sales price was just $80, Over 95 % of sold properties were purchased by the plaintiff, the entity that filed the foreclosure proceedings, 6

7 while the remainder were purchased by third parties. Properties purchased by the plaintiff are referred to as real estate owned or REO properties. With few exceptions, properties sold at Sheriff Sale must be purchased for at least 2/3 or 67 % of the appraised value. As shown in Table 2 above, those properties purchased by someone other than the Plaintiff had both higher appraisal values and sales prices. The table also shows that all sold properties in Hamilton County sold for around 75% or 3/4 the appraised value. 7

8 Foreclosure In Our Communities Hamilton County Municipalities In, the number of completed foreclosures in Hamilton County was 2,940, an increase of 300 over 2009 s figure. In 2009, the number of completed foreclosures had declined for the first time in years, temporarily reversing the steady upward trend. However, the figure is still below that of 2008 when Hamilton County experienced its peak of 3,086 completed foreclosures during the height of the nationwide foreclosure crisis. Rank 2009 (Rank) 2008 (Rank) Municipality 1 Cincinnati (1) 1355 (1) 2 Colerain Township (2) 315 (2) 3 Springfield Township (4) 217 (3) 4 Green Township (5) 147 (4) 5 Forest Park (7) 137 (5) 6 Norwood (8) 94 (6) 7 Delhi Township (9) 81 (7) 8 Anderson Township (10) 47 (9) 9 North College Hill (6) 67 (8) 10 Cheviot (3) 1 43 (10) 11 Harrison* (13) 42 (11) 12 Reading (14) 20 (21) 13 Sycamore Township (11) 32 (15) 14 Loveland (19) 29 (17) 15 Mount Healthy (21) 37 (12) Table 3: Top 15 Hamilton County Municipalities by The fifteen Hamilton County municipalities with the highest number of foreclosures are shown Table 3 above. Figures and rankings from 2008 and 2009 are provided for comparison. Twelve of the 15 municipalities experienced an increase in completed foreclosures in. The top ten municipalities have remained very steady over the past three years (see footnote 1 for one exception). Loveland and Mount Healthy experienced the largest jumps in rank in. The 1 In 2009, Cheviot experienced 132 completed foreclosures. It is important to note that 93 of these were condo units from one development and all had the same owner. Were it not for these units, Cheviot would have experienced only 39 completed foreclosures, ranking it 11 th instead of 3 rd. * Figures for Harrison and Harrison Township have been combined. Throughout the report, Harrison* is used to denote the combination of these two municipalities. 8

9 City of Cincinnati saw a near 5% increase in completed foreclosures, reversing the slow downward trend it had been experiencing since This was the smallest increase among the top 15, ten of which saw increases over 25%. The changes in completed foreclosures for all municipalities are listed in Appendix B, Table 3. Figure 4 shows in 2005 only 34% or 881 of 2,575 completed foreclosures occurred outside of the City of Cincinnati. By this figure rose to 59% or 1,735 of 2,940 completed foreclosures. This information helps confirm the fact that foreclosures are gradually spreading outside the city and touching even the outer-ring suburbs. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% City of Cincinnati All Other Hamilton County Municipalities Figure 4: City of Cincinnati's Proportion of Hamilton County The following maps also illustrate this fact. Figure 5 displays all completed foreclosures in Hamilton County, with each dot representing the location of one completed foreclosure. Figure 6 displays the number of completed foreclosures in each municipality. The highest concentrations are centrally located, within and nearby the City of Cincinnati and especially through the Mill Creek Valley. However, all parts of the county have clearly been affected. 9

10 Figure 5: Hamilton County Geographic Distribution of, 10

11 Figure 6: Hamilton County Number of, 1 Addyston 18 Glendale 35 North Bend 2 Amberley Village 19 Golf Manor 36 North College Hill 3 Anderson Township 20 Green Township 37 Norwood 4 Arlington Heights 21 Greenhills 38 Reading 5 Blue Ash 22 Harrison 39 Saint Bernard 6 Cheviot 23 Harrison Township 40 Sharonville 7 Cincinnati 24 Indian Hill 41 Silverton 8 Cleves 25 Lincoln Heights 42 Springdale 9 Colerain Township 26 Lockland 43 Springfield Township 10 Columbia Township 27 Loveland 44 Sycamore Township 11 Crosby Township 28 Madeira 45 Symmes Township 12 Deer Park 29 Mariemont 46 Terrace Park 13 Delhi Township 30 Miami Township 47 Whitewater Township 14 Elmwood Place 31 Milford 48 Woodlawn 15 Evendale 32 Montgomery 49 Wyoming 16 Fairfax 33 Mount Healthy 17 Forest Park 34 Newtown 11

12 City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods In, the number of completed foreclosures in the City of Cincinnati was 1,205, an increase of 54 over 2009 s figure. foreclosures in the City had been declining from 2006 through This figure is still well below the peak of 1,533, which was reached in the year (Rank) 2008 (Rank) Rank Neighborhood 1 Westwood (1) 166 (1) 2 West Price Hill (2) 137 (2) 3 East Price Hill (3) 102 (3) 4 Madisonville (8) 79 (5) 5 College Hill (4) 92 (4) 6 Northside (6) 64 (7) 7 Mount Airy (12) 33 (13) 8 Bond Hill (5) 45 (10) 9 Roselawn (14) 55 (9) 10 Evanston (9) 75 (6) 11 Avondale (7) 63 (8) 12 Kennedy Heights (15) 21 (17) 13 Mount Washington (18) 21 (17) 13 North Avondale (10) 19 (19) 15 Mount Auburn (13) 44 (11) Table 4: Top 15 City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods by The fifteen City of Cincinnati neighborhoods with the highest number of foreclosures are displayed in Table 4 above. Figures and rankings from 2008 and 2009 are provided for comparison. Ten of the 15 neighborhoods experienced an increase in completed foreclosures in. The top three neighborhoods have remained the same over the past three years, and the top 10 have consistently remained in the top 15, though with variable rankings over the past three years. Figure 7 displays all completed foreclosures in the City of Cincinnati, with each dot representing the location of one completed foreclosure. Figure 8 displays the number of completed foreclosures in each neighborhood. The highest concentrations of completed foreclosures are located along the western edges of the city. The four neighborhoods with the highest percent increase, over 50%, are all located along the eastern edge. These are Kennedy Heights, Madisonville, Mount Washington, and Roselawn. Those with smaller increases, below 10%, are closer to the western edge of the City, the same neighborhoods with the highest concentrations. The changes in completed foreclosures for all neighborhoods are listed in Appendix B, Table 6. 12

13 Figure 7: City of Cincinnati Geographic Distribution of, 13

14 Figure 8: City of Cincinnati Number of, 1 Avondale 19 Hartwell 37 Paddock Hills 2 Bond Hill 20 Heights 38 Pendleton 3 California 21 Hyde Park 39 Pleasant Ridge 4 Camp Washington 22 Kennedy Heights 40 Queensgate 5 Carthage 23 Linwood 41 Riverside 6 CBD/Riverfront 24 Lower Price Hill 42 Roselawn 7 Clifton 25 Madisonville 43 Sayler Park 8 College Hill 26 Millvale 44 Sedamsville 9 Columbia Tusculum 27 Mount Adams 45 South Cumminsville 10 Corryville 28 Mount Airy 46 South Fairmount 11 CUF 29 Mount Auburn 47 Walnut Hills 12 East End 30 Mount Lookout 48 West End 13 East Price Hill 31 Mount Washington 49 West Price Hill 14 East Walnut Hills 32 North Avondale 50 Westwood 15 East Westwood 33 North Fairmount 51 Winton Hills 16 English Woods 34 Northside 52 Winton Place 17 Evanston 35 Oakley 18 Fay Apartments 36 Over-The-Rhine 14

15 Statewide In, the State of Ohio experienced 85,483 new foreclosure filings, a 4% decrease from the previous year. Researchers 2 theorize the decrease was in large part due to the robo-signing controversy that lenders faced during the year, which resulted in a large decrease in the number of foreclosures filed during the final three months of the year. It was brought to public attention that lenders, especially large banks, were improperly foreclosing on properties through the use of fraudulent documentation and other means. In the fall of, many lenders temporarily halted foreclosure proceedings while investigations were pending. This theory could help explain why Hamilton County first filings decreased while listings and sales increased during. Another interesting fact is that the state is experiencing a trend of foreclosures moving from the urban counties to more suburban and rural areas. Urban counties do still experience 60% of foreclosure filings. However, the top 15 counties with the fastest growing foreclosure rates all had populations under 100,000. This is in line with the trend seen in Hamilton County of growing foreclosure rates in the suburban municipalities. 2 All information about statewide Ohio foreclosure filings was taken from Policy Matters Ohio s report Home Insecurity: Foreclosure Growth in Ohio

16 Relistings In WIN s 2009 foreclosure report, The Failing Economy = The Continuing Crisis Next Door: A Study of in Hamilton County in 2009, a new trend was noted among the collected data. Several properties had been relisted multiple times throughout the year. A total of 926 properties were found to have been relisted at least once. Taking each of these properties into account only once, instead of each time they were listed, the total number of unique properties listed for Sheriff Sale was 3,906 in comparison to the original 5,679 listings. In 2009 this phenomenon of relistings was large enough to be noticed by WIN and noted in our study. Looking back at past data, it was found that duplicates had also occurred in other years, but in much smaller numbers. Moving forward, WIN will continue to monitor this trend and report on its findings. There are at least two potential explanations for the relistings. First, if a property were to not sell the first time it was listed, it may be relisted later in the year in another attempt to sell it. Second, a property may have been pulled from Sheriff Sale and then relisted again later. This could occur for a number of reasons. For one, during the robo-signing controversy a listed property may have been pulled from sale upon suspicion that the foreclosure claim was invalid. If it was found that the owner was legitimately behind on their mortgage payments, the property would again be relisted for Sheriff Sale. Otherwise it would have been removed from the foreclosure process and not relisted. A second reason could be due to the homeowner applying for a mortgage modification through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP was introduced by the Obama administration in February 2009 to help homeowners facing economic hardships reduce their monthly mortgage payments and allow them to keep their homes. If the property had already been listed for sale, it may have been pulled during the mortgage modification process and then relisted at a later time if the modification was not approved. Sold Not Sold Total Nonduplicates Duplicates 405 (394) 1353 (390) 1758 (784) Total 2940 (2929) 2909 (1946) 5849 (4875) Table 5: Number of Duplicate and Nonduplicate Listings, In, there were again a great number of duplicate listings which WIN explored in more detail. In Table 5 above, numbers are broken out for duplicate and nonduplicate data. Numbers outside of parenthesis represent original totals while numbers within parenthesis represent totals that only count duplicate listings one time. Of the original 5,849 listings, 4,875 were unique properties. This means that 784 properties had been listed more than once and together these properties had been listed a total of 1,758 times. These duplicates have no 16

17 impact on the figures for completed foreclosures 3, but obviously have a large impact on the figure for the total number of listings. The number of times a duplicate property was listed was variable, as seen in Table 6. Many were only relisted one time while in one case a property had been listed seven times total. As shown here, it can take many listings of a property before it is sold. Keep in mind, some of these properties may first have been listed in the previous year and so the actual number of times these duplicates were listed could be even higher. For the most part, this is likely a relatively new occurrence because many fewer duplicates were found when examining past data. Times Listed Duplicate Cases, Sold Duplicate Cases, Not Sold Table 6: Total Number of Times Duplicate Listings Listed, The duplicates did not have an impact on the total number of completed foreclosures but did make a difference in the total number of listings. In Table 7 and Table 8 below, see comparisons of the top 15 municipalities and neighborhoods with and without duplicates included. In most cases there is a 10-20% difference between the two numbers. This data for all municipalities and neighborhoods can be found in Appendix C, Tables 1 and 2 respectively. 3 The difference between the 405 and 394 in the duplicates cell of the sold column in, Table 5 is not due to solely duplicate status. Rather, the difference of 11 is due to the fact that 11 properties were sold twice at Sheriff Sale. Of these properties, four were located in the City of Cincinnati, two in Colerain Township, and one each in Anderson Township, Forest Park, Green Township, Montgomery, and Silverton. 17

18 Rank Municipality Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Cincinnati Colerain Township Springfield Township Green Township Forest Park Norwood Delhi Township Anderson Township North College Hill Cheviot Harrison* Reading Sycamore Township Loveland Mount Healthy Table 7: Top 15 Hamilton County Municipalities by, With and Without Duplicates Rank Neighborhood Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Westwood West Price Hill East Price Hill Madisonville College Hill Northside Mount Airy Bond Hill Roselawn Evanston Avondale Kennedy Heights Mount Washington North Avondale Mount Auburn Table 8: Top 15 City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods by, With and Without Duplicates 18

19 Lenders In addition to comparing the geographic distribution of completed foreclosures in Hamilton County, we also examined lender behavior. Mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies, and bank failures have contributed to lender behavior in recent years. In order to gain an accurate picture of this behavior, we have grouped lenders under their appropriate parent companies to the best of our ability and as accurately as possible, based on the information provided by the National Information Center of the Federal Reserve. Rank Lending Institution 1 US Bank; First Star Bank; Leader Mortgage Co.; Park National Bank 2 Bank Of America; BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P.; Countrywide Bank; FSB; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; LaSalle Bank National Association; LaSalle Bank Midwest; First Franklin Financial Corporation 3 Citibank; Citifinancial Inc.; Citicorp Trust Bank FSB; Citifinancial Mortgage Company, Inc.; ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc.; Citimortgage, Inc. 4 Wells Fargo Bank; Wells Fargo Financial Ohio 1, Inc.; Wachovia Bank 5 JP Morgan Chase Bank; JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Chase Home Finance; Washington Mutual Bank Listings % Listed % % % % % 6 Fifth Third Bank; Fifth Third Mortgage Company % % 7 HSBC Bank; HSBC Bank USA National Assoc.; HSBC Mortgage Corp.; HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.; Household Realty Corporation; Beneficial Ohio, Inc. 8 Deutsche Bank % 9 Bank Of New York; Bank of New York Mellon % % 10 PNC Bank; PNC Mortgage; National City Bank; National City Mortgage Company; National City Real Estate Services, LLC. 11 PHH Mortgage % 12 Huntington National Bank; Sky Bank % 13 Aurora Bank; Aurora Loan Services; Lehman Brothers % 14 Suntrust Mortgage % 15 Nationstar Mortgage % 16 GMAC Mortgage % 16 Onewest Bank; Indymac Federal Bank % 16 Encore Bank; Guardian Savings Bank % 19 Third Federal Savings & Loan Association % 20 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation % Table 9: Top 20 Lenders by 19

20 For the purposes of this comparison, the lender that was identified as the Plaintiff in the first week s listing of Sheriff s Sales of The Cincinnati Court Index was assumed to be the responsible party for the foreclosure, regardless of whether other institutions originated or serviced the loan in the past. We then relied on information provided by the National Information Center of the Federal Reserve to identify the parent company of each lending institution in order to report on trends in lender behavior based on parent companies rather than individual subsidiaries. Table 9 lists the top 20 lenders based on completed foreclosure sales. The table also includes the number of properties announced in the first week Sheriff s Sale listing of The Cincinnati Court Index, and the percentage of the listed properties that resulted in completed foreclosures. A list of all lenders with five or more completed foreclosures can be found in Appendix D, Table 1. Eight lenders were involved in 100 or more completed foreclosures in Hamilton County, a slight decrease from 2009 numbers. The ranking of lending institutions changed slightly in, though the major players from 2009 remained at the top again. Rank Lending Institution 2009 (Rank) % Change 2008 (Rank) Table 10: Top Five Lenders by Foreclosure, (Rank) 2006 (Rank) 2005 (Rank) 1 US Bank (2) 39% 348 (1) 303 (3) 226 (5) 150 (5) 2 Bank Of America (1) 27% 246 (4) 83 (12) 12 (28) 20 (21) 3 Citibank (4) 39% 193 (6) 221 (5) 115 (7) 98 (8) 4 Wells Fargo Bank (3) 21% 338 (2) 334 (1) 333 (1) 186 (4) 5 JP Morgan Chase Bank (5) 9% 214 (5) 230 (4) 284 (2) 210 (2) The top five lending institutions based on completed foreclosures in and 2009 are listed in Table 10. These are the exact lenders that made the top five list last year, though their ranking has changed. US Bank and Citibank both experienced the highest percentage increase of 39%. US Bank had dropped to second place in 2009 after experiencing a large decrease of 34% in completed foreclosures. In 2008 they had been ranked number one with 348 completed foreclosures. All five of these top lenders have experienced large increases in percentage change since last year. In 2009, the highest percentage change was a mere seven percent and three of the five lenders actually saw decreases of over 20%. In, however, all of the lenders experienced increases and four of the five saw increases over 20%. JP Morgan Chase saw the smallest increase of just 9%, but this is still above the highest percentage change in In, the top 20 lenders accounted for around 83% of all completed foreclosures, a number even higher than 2009 s staggering 76%. This, along with the large increases seen in the number of foreclosures completed by the top five, emphasizes the point that an increasingly smaller number of banks continue to play an ever larger role in the foreclosure process. This is 20

21 likely in large part due to the institutional mergers, acquisitions, and bankruptcies faced by banks in the previous two years. However, as this happens, a smaller percentage of properties listed are actually being sold. Last year s average was 68% compared to this year s 57%. In WIN also looked more closely at lender activity within City of Cincinnati neighborhoods to determine if there was any pattern to the geographic distribution of foreclosures by particular lenders. While there was some variance, it was found that lenders were foreclosing fairly proportionately across all neighborhoods. This was especially true in neighborhoods with higher numbers of foreclosures, such as West Price Hill, where the large sample sizes allowed for representation of all lenders. Neighborhoods with lower numbers of foreclosures did see disproportionately high numbers of foreclosures from some lenders, but this was likely due to their smaller sample sizes. 21

22 References CAGIS. Internet Map Server. From < Accessed3 January Cincinnati Court Index. From < Accessed January -February Hamilton County Auditor. From < Accessed January -February Policy Matters Ohio. Home Insecurity: Foreclosure Growth in Ohio From < > Accessed 1 March. Supreme Court of Ohio, Down 4 Percent in. From < Accessed 10 February United States Census. American Community Survey One-Year Estimate, 2007, Selected Housing Characteristics. < Accessed. United States Census American Fact Finder. Census Summary File 4 (SF 4) Sample Data. Table DP- 2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: Accessed. United States Census American Fact Finder. Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF 4) Sample Data. Table DP- 4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: Accessed. United States Census American Fact Finder. Census GCT-PL2 Population and Housing Occupancy Status: - State -- County Subdivision Accessed 18 March United States Federal Reserve. National Information Center Institution Search. From < 22

23 Appendices Appendix A: Introduction Table 1: Occupied Housing Units in Foreclosure, City of Cincinnati Hamilton County Total Population 296, ,374 Total Housing Units 161, ,364 Occupied Housing Units 133, ,945 Number of 1,205 2,940 % of Occupied Units in Foreclosure 0.90% 0.88% Number of ,356 5,580 % of Occupied Units in Foreclosure % 1.67% 23

24 Figure 1: City of Cincinnati, 2009 & 24

25 Appendix B: In Our Communities Table 1: Hamilton County by Municipality, Rank Municipality Listings % Cincinnati % Colerain Township % Springfield Township % Green Township % Forest Park % Norwood % Delhi Township % Anderson Township % North College Hill % Cheviot % Harrison* % Reading % Sycamore Township % Loveland % Mount Healthy % Silverton % Golf Manor % Springdale % Miami Township % Sharonville % Cleves % Saint Bernard % Lockland % Deer Park % Columbia Township % Elmwood Place % Fairfax % Greenhills % Montgomery % Blue Ash % Madeira % Lincoln Heights % Symmes Township % Wyoming % Woodlawn % Whitewater Township % Newtown % Indian Hill % Addyston % Crosby Township % Glendale % Mariemont % North Bend % Evendale % Amberley Village % Arlington Heights % Terrace Park % Milford %

26 Table 2: Hamilton County as a Percentage of Owner Occupied Units 2000 Rank Owner Occupied Units, 2000 Estimated Foreclosure Rate Municipality 1 Elmwood Place % 2 Addyston % 3 Cleves % 4 Golf Manor % 5 Fairfax % 6 Forest Park % 7 Lincoln Heights % 8 Lockland % 9 North Bend % 10 North College Hill % 11 Cincinnati % 12 Silverton % 13 Cheviot % 14 Mount Healthy % 15 Norwood % 16 Springfield Township % 17 Saint Bernard % 18 Colerain Township % 19 Greenhills % 20 Woodlawn % 21 Reading % 22 Loveland % 23 Newtown % 24 Deer Park % 25 Springdale % 26 Delhi Township % 27 Columbia Township % 28 Harrison* % 29 Green Township % 30 Sharonville % 31 Glendale % 32 Crosby Township % 33 Miami Township % 34 Sycamore Township % 35 Whitewater Township % 36 Mariemont % 37 Anderson Township % 38 Madeira % 39 Montgomery % 40 Arlington Heights % 41 Blue Ash % 42 Wyoming % 43 Indian Hill % 44 Symmes Township % 45 Evendale % 46 Amberley Village % 47 Terrace Park % 48 Milford % 26

27 Table 3: Change in Hamilton County by Municipality, Rank 2009 Change % Change Municipality 1 Montgomery % 2 Fairfax % 3 Cleves % 4 Lincoln Heights % 4 Indian Hill % 6 Springfield Township % 7 Greenhills % 8 Forest Park % 9 Mount Healthy % 9 Evendale % 11 Loveland % 12 Lockland % 13 Harrison* % 14 Silverton % 14 Addyston % 16 Delhi Township % 17 Madeira % 18 Norwood % 19 Anderson Township % 20 Whitewater Township % 20 North Bend % 22 Miami Township % 23 Colerain Township % 24 Reading % 25 Golf Manor % 26 Deer Park % 27 Green Township % 28 Columbia Township % 29 Wyoming % 30 Cincinnati % 31 Glendale % 32 Sharonville % 33 Saint Bernard % 34 Newtown % 35 Elmwood Place % 36 Sycamore Township % 37 Blue Ash % 38 Woodlawn % 39 North College Hill % 40 Symmes Township % 41 Springdale % 42 Arlington Heights % 43 Cheviot % 44 Amberley Village % 45 Crosby Township % 46 Terrace Park % Mariemont Milford

28 Table 4: City of Cincinnati by Neighborhood, Rank Neighborhood Listings % 1 Westwood % West Price Hill % East Price Hill % Madisonville % College Hill % Northside % Mount Airy % Bond Hill % Roselawn % Evanston % Avondale % Kennedy Heights % Mount Washington % North Avondale % Mount Auburn % Hartwell % Pleasant Ridge % Carthage % East Walnut Hills % CUF % Sayler Park % South Fairmount % Walnut Hills % Oakley % Hyde Park % Over-The-Rhine % Columbia Tusculum % Linwood % Mount Lookout % Corryville % CBD/Riverfront % North Fairmount % Riverside % West End % Clifton % East End % East Westwood % California % Paddock Hills % South Cumminsville % Winton Hills % Winton Place % Camp Washington % Fay Apartments % Heights % Lower Price Hill % Millvale % Mount Adams % Pendleton % Sedamsville %

29 Table 5: City of Cincinnati as a Percentage of Owner Occupied Units 2000 Rank Owner Occupied Units, 2000 Estimated Foreclosure Rate Neighborhood 1 CDB/Riverfront % 2 OTR/ Pendleton % 3 Linwood % 4 Sedamsville/Riverside/ Sayler Park % 5 South Fairmount % 6 Hartwell % 7 Corryville % 8 Mount Auburn % 9 Roselawn % 10 California % 11 Carthage % 12 Mount Airy % 13 Madisonville % 14 North Avondale/ Paddock Hills 1, % 15 Winton Hills % 16 West Price Hill % 17 East Price Hill % 18 Northside % 19 Walnut Hills % 20 Kennedy Heights % 21 Bond Hill % 22 Evanston/ East Walnut Hills 2, % 23 Westwood/ East Westwood 6, % 24 Avondale % 25 West End % 26 College Hill % 27 CUF % 28 East End % 29 North Fairmount/ English Woods % 30 South Cumminsville/ Millvale % 31 Camp Washington % 32 Lower Price Hill % 33 Pleasant Ridge % 34 Columbia Tusculum/ Mount Lookout 2, % 35 Mount Washington % 36 Oakley % 37 Winton Place % 38 Clifton % 39 Hyde Park % 40 Mount Adams % Fay Apartments Heights

30 Table 6: Change in City of Cincinnati by Neighborhood, Rank 2009 % Change Neighborhood Change 1 Hartwell % 2 Linwood % 3 East End % 4 CBD/Riverfront % 4 Winton Hills % 6 East Walnut Hills % 7 Mount Washington % 8 Madisonville % 9 Kennedy Heights % 10 Riverside % 11 Roselawn % 11 Hyde Park % 13 Pleasant Ridge % 13 South Cumminsville % 15 Over-The-Rhine % 16 Mount Airy % 17 Carthage % 17 Clifton % 19 CUF % 20 West Price Hill % 21 Westwood % 22 Northside % 23 Mount Auburn % 24 East Price Hill % 25 Mount Lookout % 25 Corryville % 25 North Fairmount % 28 College Hill % 29 Evanston % 30 Sayler Park % 30 Walnut Hills % 32 Oakley % 32 West End % 34 Columbia Tusculum % 35 Paddock Hills % 36 Bond Hill % 37 North Avondale % 38 California % 39 Avondale % 40 South Fairmount % 41 East Westwood % 42 Winton Place % 43 Sedamsville % 44 Mount Adams % 45 Camp Washington % 46 Lower Price Hill % 46 Millvale % 48 Pendleton % Fay Apartments Heights

31 Appendix C: Relistings Table 1: Hamilton County Municipalities by, With and Without Duplicates Rank Municipality Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Cincinnati Colerain Township Springfield Township Green Township Forest Park Norwood Delhi Township Anderson Township North College Hill Cheviot Harrison* Reading Sycamore Township Loveland Mount Healthy Golf Manor Silverton Miami Township Springdale Sharonville Cleves Saint Bernard Lockland Deer Park Columbia Township Elmwood Place Fairfax Greenhills Montgomery Blue Ash Madeira Lincoln Heights Symmes Township Wyoming Woodlawn Whitewater Township Indian Hill Newtown Crosby Township Addyston Glendale Mariemont North Bend Amberley Village Evendale Arlington Heights Milford Terrace Park

32 Table 2: City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods by, With and Without Duplicates Rank Neighborhood Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Westwood West Price Hill East Price Hill Madisonville College Hill Northside Mount Airy Bond Hill Roselawn Evanston Avondale Kennedy Heights Mount Washington North Avondale Mount Auburn Hartwell Pleasant Ridge Carthage East Walnut Hills CUF South Fairmount Walnut Hills Sayler Park Hyde Park Oakley Over-The-Rhine Columbia Tusculum Linwood Mount Lookout Corryville CBD/Riverfront North Fairmount Riverside West End Clifton East Westwood East End California Paddock Hills South Cumminsville Winton Hills Winton Place Camp Washington Fay Apartments Heights Lower Price Hill Millvale Mount Adams Pendleton Sedamsville

33 Appendix D: Lenders Table 1: Lenders With Five or More, Rank Lending Institution Listings % Listed 1 US Bank; First Star Bank; Leader Mortgage Co.; Park National % Bank 2 Bank Of America; BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P.; % Countrywide Bank; FSB; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; LaSalle Bank National Association; LaSalle Bank Midwest; First Franklin Financial Corporation 3 Citibank; Citifinancial Inc.; Citicorp Trust Bank FSB; % Citifinancial Mortgage Company, Inc.; ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc.; Citimortgage, Inc. 4 Wells Fargo Bank; Wells Fargo Financial Ohio 1, Inc.; % Wachovia Bank 5 JP Morgan Chase Bank; JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC; EMC % Mortgage Corporation; Chase Home Finance; Washington Mutual Bank 6 Fifth Third Bank; Fifth Third Mortgage Company % 7 HSBC Bank; HSBC Bank USA National Assoc.; HSBC Mortgage % Corp.; HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.; Household Realty Corporation; Beneficial Ohio, Inc. 8 Deutsche Bank % 9 Bank Of New York; Bank of New York Mellon % 10 PNC Bank; PNC Mortgage; National City Bank; National City % Mortgage Company; National City Real Estate Services, LLC. 11 PHH Mortgage % 12 Huntington National Bank; Sky Bank % 13 Aurora Bank; Aurora Loan Services; Lehman Brothers % 14 Suntrust Mortgage % 15 Nationstar Mortgage % 16 GMAC Mortgage % 16 Onewest Bank; Indymac Federal Bank % 16 Encore Bank; Guardian Savings Bank % 19 Third Federal Savings & Loan Association % 20 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation % 21 Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation % 21 Everhome Mortgage Company % 23 Financial Freedom Acquisition % 23 Advantage Bank % 25 Midfirst Bank % 26 Flagstar Bank % 27 Wesbanco Bank % 28 Bayview Loan Services % 28 Ocwen Loan Servicing % 30 Everbank % 30 Cinfed Federal Credit Union % 32 First Financial Bank; People s Community Bank % 32 First Horizon Home Loans % 32 Liberty Savings Bank % 32 Bramble Savings Bank % 33

34 Rank Lending Institution Listings % Listed 36 Moreequity, Inc % 37 RBS Citizens % 38 Franklin Savings Bank % 38 American General Financial Services % 38 Valley Central Savings Bank % 41 Robert A Goering Treasurer, Hamilton County, Ohio % 41 McCormick % 43 Key Bank % 43 Wright Patt Credit Union % 43 Provident Funding Associates % 43 Regions Bank % 47 Ameribank % 47 Centex Home Equity Company % 47 Peoples Community Bank % 47 American Home Mortgage Servicing % 47 Eagle Savings Bank % 47 Imperial Capital Bank % 53 LNV Corporation % 53 Residential Credit Solutions % 55 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems % 55 Nisbet, Inc % 55 Sovereign Bank % 34