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

The Recession Is Over? Hamilton County Families Are Still In Foreclosure A Study of in March 29, 2011 2,940 Mortgage in Hamilton County in 1814 Dreman Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45223 513-541-4109 * www.wincincy.org

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 2009. 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

Figure 1: Hamilton County, 2009 & 3

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, 2011. 4

Key Findings In, there were 6,556 new foreclosure filings in Hamilton County, representing a decrease of two percent from 2009. 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. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Filings 5066 5876 6277 6673 6714 6556 Listings 3528 4727 4946 5382 5679 5849 Sales 2575 3030 3076 3086 2640 2940 Table 1: Hamilton County, 2005- 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. 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 Filings Listings Sales 1000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Figure 2: Hamilton County, 2005- 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

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% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 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 $107,312.78 $80,139.80.75 Bought By Plaintiff $103,715.32 $77,562.41.75 Bought By Third Party $134,087.70 $102,371.78.76 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, 312.78 while the average sales price was just $80, 139.80. Over 95 % of sold properties were purchased by the plaintiff, the entity that filed the foreclosure proceedings, 6

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

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 1205 1151 (1) 1355 (1) 2 Colerain Township 295 229 (2) 315 (2) 3 Springfield Township 201 124 (4) 217 (3) 4 Green Township 145 121 (5) 147 (4) 5 Forest Park 125 79 (7) 137 (5) 6 Norwood 87 64 (8) 94 (6) 7 Delhi Township 81 58 (9) 81 (7) 8 Anderson Township 75 56 (10) 47 (9) 9 North College Hill 68 89 (6) 67 (8) 10 Cheviot 50 132 (3) 1 43 (10) 11 Harrison* 45 31 (13) 42 (11) 12 Reading 38 30 (14) 20 (21) 13 Sycamore Township 37 46 (11) 32 (15) 14 Loveland 31 21 (19) 29 (17) 15 Mount Healthy 30 20 (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

City of Cincinnati saw a near 5% increase in completed foreclosures, reversing the slow downward trend it had been experiencing since 2006. 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% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 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

Figure 5: Hamilton County Geographic Distribution of, 10

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

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 2009. This figure is still well below the peak of 1,533, which was reached in the year 2006. 2009 (Rank) 2008 (Rank) Rank Neighborhood 1 Westwood 137 129 (1) 166 (1) 2 West Price Hill 118 108 (2) 137 (2) 3 East Price Hill 83 81 (3) 102 (3) 4 Madisonville 78 48 (8) 79 (5) 5 College Hill 67 68 (4) 92 (4) 6 Northside 56 54 (6) 64 (7) 7 Mount Airy 46 36 (12) 33 (13) 8 Bond Hill 43 54 (5) 45 (10) 9 Roselawn 42 28 (14) 55 (9) 10 Evanston 40 43 (9) 75 (6) 11 Avondale 37 52 (7) 63 (8) 12 Kennedy Heights 34 21 (15) 21 (17) 13 Mount Washington 31 19 (18) 21 (17) 13 North Avondale 31 43 (10) 19 (19) 15 Mount Auburn 30 29 (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

Figure 7: City of Cincinnati Geographic Distribution of, 13

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

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 2011. 15

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 2535 1556 4091 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

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 2 3 4 5 7 Duplicate Cases, Sold 330 53 8 3 Duplicate Cases, Not Sold 301 71 15 2 1 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

Rank Municipality Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Cincinnati 2280 1921 1205 2 Colerain Township 575 479 295 3 Springfield Township 418 350 201 4 Green Township 276 230 145 5 Forest Park 274 215 125 6 Norwood 160 140 87 7 Delhi Township 180 155 81 8 Anderson Township 147 124 75 9 North College Hill 144 116 68 10 Cheviot 96 73 50 11 Harrison* 78 69 45 12 Reading 64 60 38 13 Sycamore Township 90 74 37 14 Loveland 43 38 31 15 Mount Healthy 61 46 30 Table 7: Top 15 Hamilton County Municipalities by, With and Without Duplicates Rank Neighborhood Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Westwood 246 208 137 2 West Price Hill 210 177 118 3 East Price Hill 142 127 83 4 Madisonville 144 123 78 5 College Hill 148 117 67 6 Northside 82 69 56 7 Mount Airy 76 66 46 8 Bond Hill 84 69 43 9 Roselawn 77 64 42 10 Evanston 77 66 40 11 Avondale 76 66 37 12 Kennedy Heights 71 57 34 13 Mount Washington 55 49 31 13 North Avondale 66 55 31 15 Mount Auburn 57 51 30 Table 8: Top 15 City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods by, With and Without Duplicates 18

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 755 379 50.20% 825 362 43.88% 551 324 58.80% 570 272 47.72% 486 184 37.86% 6 Fifth Third Bank; Fifth Third Mortgage Company 275 174 63.27% 260 150 57.69% 7 HSBC Bank; HSBC Bank USA National Assoc.; HSBC Mortgage Corp.; HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.; Household Realty Corporation; Beneficial Ohio, Inc. 8 Deutsche Bank 319 127 39.81% 9 Bank Of New York; Bank of New York Mellon 257 88 34.24% 164 74 45.12% 10 PNC Bank; PNC Mortgage; National City Bank; National City Mortgage Company; National City Real Estate Services, LLC. 11 PHH Mortgage 69 45 65.22% 12 Huntington National Bank; Sky Bank 63 38 60.32% 13 Aurora Bank; Aurora Loan Services; Lehman Brothers 61 35 57.38% 14 Suntrust Mortgage 46 30 65.22% 15 Nationstar Mortgage 48 28 58.33% 16 GMAC Mortgage 68 27 39.71% 16 Onewest Bank; Indymac Federal Bank 52 27 51.92% 16 Encore Bank; Guardian Savings Bank 34 27 79.41% 19 Third Federal Savings & Loan Association 30 25 83.33% 20 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 35 24 68.57% Table 9: Top 20 Lenders by 19

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, 2005-2007 (Rank) 2006 (Rank) 2005 (Rank) 1 US Bank 379 230 (2) 39% 348 (1) 303 (3) 226 (5) 150 (5) 2 Bank Of America 362 264 (1) 27% 246 (4) 83 (12) 12 (28) 20 (21) 3 Citibank 324 199 (4) 39% 193 (6) 221 (5) 115 (7) 98 (8) 4 Wells Fargo Bank 272 216 (3) 21% 338 (2) 334 (1) 333 (1) 186 (4) 5 JP Morgan Chase Bank 184 168 (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 2009. 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

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

References CAGIS. Internet Map Server. From <http://cagis.hamilton-co.org/map/cagis/htm>. Accessed3 January 2011. Cincinnati Court Index. From <http://www.courtindex.com>. Accessed January -February 2011. Hamilton County Auditor. From <http://www.hamiltoncounty.org>. Accessed January -February 2011. Policy Matters Ohio. Home Insecurity: Foreclosure Growth in Ohio 2011. From < http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/homeinsecurity2011.pdf > Accessed 1 March. Supreme Court of Ohio, Down 4 Percent in. From <http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pio/news/2011/foreclosurestats_021011.asp>. Accessed 10 February 2011. United States Census. American Community Survey One-Year Estimate, 2007, Selected Housing Characteristics. <http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed. United States Census American Fact Finder. Census Summary File 4 (SF 4) Sample Data. Table DP- 2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. Accessed. United States Census American Fact Finder. Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF 4) Sample Data. Table DP- 4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000. Accessed. United States Census American Fact Finder. Census GCT-PL2 Population and Housing Occupancy Status: - State -- County Subdivision Accessed 18 March 2011. United States Federal Reserve. National Information Center Institution Search. From <http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/searchform.aspx>. 22

Appendices Appendix A: Introduction Table 1: Occupied Housing Units in Foreclosure, City of Cincinnati Hamilton County Total Population 296,943 802,374 Total Housing Units 161,095 377,364 Occupied Housing Units 133,420 333,945 Number of 1,205 2,940 % of Occupied Units in Foreclosure 0.90% 0.88% Number of 2009-2,356 5,580 % of Occupied Units in Foreclosure 2009-1.77% 1.67% 23

Figure 1: City of Cincinnati, 2009 & 24

Appendix B: In Our Communities Table 1: Hamilton County by Municipality, 2008- Rank Municipality Listings % 2009 2008 1 Cincinnati 2280 1205 52.85% 1151 1355 2 Colerain Township 575 295 51.30% 229 315 3 Springfield Township 418 201 48.09% 124 217 4 Green Township 276 145 52.54% 121 147 5 Forest Park 274 125 45.62% 79 137 6 Norwood 160 87 54.38% 64 94 7 Delhi Township 180 81 45.00% 58 81 8 Anderson Township 147 75 51.02% 56 47 9 North College Hill 144 68 47.22% 89 67 10 Cheviot 96 50 52.08% 132 43 11 Harrison* 78 45 57.69% 31 42 12 Reading 64 38 59.38% 30 20 13 Sycamore Township 90 37 41.11% 46 32 14 Loveland 43 31 72.09% 21 29 15 Mount Healthy 61 30 49.18% 20 37 16 Silverton 61 28 45.90% 20 19 16 Golf Manor 58 28 48.28% 23 36 18 Springdale 64 25 39.06% 36 33 18 Miami Township 56 25 44.64% 19 18 20 Sharonville 55 24 43.64% 25 15 21 Cleves 34 23 67.65% 12 28 22 Saint Bernard 47 22 46.81% 23 30 23 Lockland 35 19 54.29% 13 27 24 Deer Park 44 18 40.91% 15 21 25 Columbia Township 36 17 47.22% 15 16 25 Elmwood Place 29 17 58.62% 20 19 25 Fairfax 25 17 68.00% 8 10 28 Greenhills 35 16 45.71% 10 7 29 Montgomery 42 15 35.71% 7 3 29 Blue Ash 40 15 37.50% 19 15 29 Madeira 37 15 40.54% 11 5 32 Lincoln Heights 33 14 42.42% 8 17 33 Symmes Township 35 12 34.29% 17 16 34 Wyoming 34 10 29.41% 9 16 34 Woodlawn 24 10 41.67% 13 17 36 Whitewater Township 23 8 34.78% 6 3 37 Newtown 20 7 35.00% 8 5 37 Indian Hill 18 7 38.89% 4 3 37 Addyston 14 7 50.00% 5 4 40 Crosby Township 9 6 66.67% 21 4 41 Glendale 14 5 35.71% 5 5 41 Mariemont 8 5 62.50% 0 4 43 North Bend 4 4 100.00% 3 0 44 Evendale 8 3 37.50% 2 3 45 Amberley Village 12 2 16.67% 6 13 46 Arlington Heights 4 1 25.00% 2 7 46 Terrace Park 4 1 25.00% 4 4 46 Milford 1 1 100.00% --- --- 25

Table 2: Hamilton County as a Percentage of Owner Occupied Units 2000 Rank Owner Occupied Units, 2000 Estimated Foreclosure Rate Municipality 1 Elmwood Place 492 17 3.46% 2 Addyston 203 7 3.45% 3 Cleves 729 23 3.16% 4 Golf Manor 985 28 2.84% 5 Fairfax 623 17 2.73% 6 Forest Park 4602 125 2.72% 7 Lincoln Heights 567 14 2.47% 8 Lockland 774 19 2.45% 9 North Bend 170 4 2.35% 10 North College Hill 2891 68 2.35% 11 Cincinnati 57655 1205 2.09% 12 Silverton 1377 28 2.03% 13 Cheviot 2503 50 2.00% 14 Mount Healthy 1583 30 1.90% 15 Norwood 4799 87 1.81% 16 Springfield Township 11565 201 1.74% 17 Saint Bernard 1314 22 1.67% 18 Colerain Township 18224 295 1.62% 19 Greenhills 1125 16 1.42% 20 Woodlawn 731 10 1.37% 21 Reading 2916 38 1.30% 22 Loveland 2831 31 1.10% 23 Newtown 640 7 1.09% 24 Deer Park 1883 18 0.96% 25 Springdale 2664 25 0.94% 26 Delhi Township 8789 81 0.92% 27 Columbia Township 1867 17 0.91% 28 Harrison* 5601 45 0.80% 29 Green Township 18413 145 0.79% 30 Sharonville 3224 24 0.74% 31 Glendale 724 5 0.69% 32 Crosby Township 879 6 0.68% 33 Miami Township 3870 25 0.65% 34 Sycamore Township 5962 37 0.62% 35 Whitewater Township 1410 8 0.57% 36 Mariemont 906 5 0.55% 37 Anderson Township 13716 75 0.55% 38 Madeira 3130 15 0.48% 39 Montgomery 3314 15 0.45% 40 Arlington Heights 221 1 0.45% 41 Blue Ash 3722 15 0.40% 42 Wyoming 2712 10 0.37% 43 Indian Hill 1970 7 0.36% 44 Symmes Township 3856 12 0.31% 45 Evendale 1023 3 0.29% 46 Amberley Village 1306 2 0.15% 47 Terrace Park 707 1 0.14% 48 Milford 1176 1 0.09% 26

Table 3: Change in Hamilton County by Municipality, 2008- Rank 2009 Change % Change Municipality 1 Montgomery 15 7 8 114.29% 2 Fairfax 17 8 9 112.50% 3 Cleves 23 12 11 91.67% 4 Lincoln Heights 14 8 6 75.00% 4 Indian Hill 7 4 3 75.00% 6 Springfield Township 201 124 77 62.10% 7 Greenhills 16 10 6 60.00% 8 Forest Park 125 79 46 58.23% 9 Mount Healthy 30 20 10 50.00% 9 Evendale 3 2 1 50.00% 11 Loveland 31 21 10 47.62% 12 Lockland 19 13 6 46.15% 13 Harrison* 45 31 14 45.16% 14 Silverton 28 20 8 40.00% 14 Addyston 7 5 2 40.00% 16 Delhi Township 81 58 23 39.66% 17 Madeira 15 11 4 36.36% 18 Norwood 87 64 23 35.94% 19 Anderson Township 75 56 19 33.93% 20 Whitewater Township 8 6 2 33.33% 20 North Bend 4 3 1 33.33% 22 Miami Township 25 19 6 31.58% 23 Colerain Township 295 229 66 28.82% 24 Reading 38 30 8 26.67% 25 Golf Manor 28 23 5 21.74% 26 Deer Park 18 15 3 20.00% 27 Green Township 145 121 24 19.83% 28 Columbia Township 17 15 2 13.33% 29 Wyoming 10 9 1 11.11% 30 Cincinnati 1205 1151 54 4.69% 31 Glendale 5 5 0 0.00% 32 Sharonville 24 25-1 -4.00% 33 Saint Bernard 22 23-1 -4.35% 34 Newtown 7 8-1 -12.50% 35 Elmwood Place 17 20-3 -15.00% 36 Sycamore Township 37 46-9 -19.57% 37 Blue Ash 15 19-4 -21.05% 38 Woodlawn 10 13-3 -23.08% 39 North College Hill 68 89-21 -23.60% 40 Symmes Township 12 17-5 -29.41% 41 Springdale 25 36-11 -30.56% 42 Arlington Heights 1 2-1 -50.00% 43 Cheviot 50 132-82 -62.12% 44 Amberley Village 2 6-4 -66.67% 45 Crosby Township 6 21-15 -71.43% 46 Terrace Park 1 4-3 -75.00% Mariemont 5 0 5 --- Milford 1 --- --- --- 27

Table 4: City of Cincinnati by Neighborhood, 2008- Rank 2009 2008 Neighborhood Listings % 1 Westwood 246 137 55.69% 129 166 2 West Price Hill 210 118 56.19% 108 137 3 East Price Hill 142 83 58.45% 81 102 4 Madisonville 144 78 54.17% 48 79 5 College Hill 148 67 45.27% 68 92 6 Northside 82 56 68.29% 54 64 7 Mount Airy 76 46 60.53% 36 33 8 Bond Hill 84 43 51.19% 54 45 9 Roselawn 77 42 54.55% 28 55 10 Evanston 77 40 51.95% 43 75 11 Avondale 76 37 48.68% 52 63 12 Kennedy Heights 71 34 47.89% 21 21 13 Mount Washington 55 31 56.36% 19 21 13 North Avondale 66 31 46.97% 43 19 15 Mount Auburn 57 30 52.63% 29 44 16 Hartwell 44 27 61.36% 7 16 17 Pleasant Ridge 52 24 46.15% 18 26 18 Carthage 42 21 50.00% 18 22 18 East Walnut Hills 41 21 51.22% 12 12 20 CUF 36 20 55.56% 18 34 21 Sayler Park 33 18 54.55% 20 18 21 South Fairmount 39 18 46.15% 40 33 21 Walnut Hills 35 18 51.43% 20 18 24 Oakley 32 16 50.00% 18 8 25 Hyde Park 24 15 62.50% 10 11 26 Over-The-Rhine 21 13 61.90% 10 6 27 Columbia Tusculum 21 11 52.38% 13 13 28 Linwood 17 10 58.82% 3 3 28 Mount Lookout 20 10 50.00% 10 3 30 Corryville 19 9 47.37% 9 6 31 CBD/Riverfront 11 8 72.73% 4 4 31 North Fairmount 19 8 42.11% 8 13 31 Riverside 16 8 50.00% 5 3 31 West End 19 8 42.11% 9 14 35 Clifton 11 7 63.64% 6 14 36 East End 18 6 33.33% 2 5 36 East Westwood 14 6 42.86% 15 4 38 California 8 5 62.50% 7 0 38 Paddock Hills 16 5 31.25% 6 5 40 South Cumminsville 10 4 40.00% 3 9 40 Winton Hills 9 4 44.44% 2 1 42 Winton Place 12 3 25.00% 8 13 43 Camp Washington 4 2 50.00% 9 2 44 Fay Apartments 1 1 100.00% --- --- 44 Heights 1 1 100.00% --- --- 44 Lower Price Hill 7 1 14.29% 5 7 44 Millvale 2 1 50.00% 5 7 44 Mount Adams 1 1 100.00% 4 3 44 Pendleton 8 1 12.50% 11 0 44 Sedamsville 6 1 16.67% 3 5 28

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 15 8 53.33% 2 OTR/ Pendleton 140 14 10.00% 3 Linwood 204 10 4.90% 4 Sedamsville/Riverside/ Sayler Park 631 27 4.28% 5 South Fairmount 427 18 4.22% 6 Hartwell 690 27 3.91% 7 Corryville 235 9 3.83% 8 Mount Auburn 794 30 3.78% 9 Roselawn 1117 42 3.76% 10 California 141 5 3.55% 11 Carthage 594 21 3.54% 12 Mount Airy 1437 46 3.20% 13 Madisonville 2491 78 3.13% 14 North Avondale/ Paddock Hills 1,152 36 3.13% 15 Winton Hills 131 4 3.05% 16 West Price Hill 3905 118 3.02% 17 East Price Hill 2765 83 3.00% 18 Northside 2002 56 2.80% 19 Walnut Hills 714 18 2.52% 20 Kennedy Heights 1449 34 2.35% 21 Bond Hill 1883 43 2.28% 22 Evanston/ East Walnut Hills 2,689 61 2.27% 23 Westwood/ East Westwood 6,308 143 2.27% 24 Avondale 1634 37 2.26% 25 West End 408 8 1.96% 26 College Hill 3827 67 1.75% 27 CUF 1199 20 1.67% 28 East End 360 6 1.67% 29 North Fairmount/ English Woods 510 8 1.57% 30 South Cumminsville/ Millvale 359 5 1.39% 31 Camp Washington 145 2 1.38% 32 Lower Price Hill 87 1 1.15% 33 Pleasant Ridge 2173 24 1.10% 34 Columbia Tusculum/ Mount Lookout 2,051 21 1.02% 35 Mount Washington 3254 31 0.95% 36 Oakley 2757 16 0.58% 37 Winton Place 539 3 0.56% 38 Clifton 1509 7 0.46% 39 Hyde Park 3776 15 0.40% 40 Mount Adams 330 1 0.30% Fay Apartments --- 1 --- Heights --- 1 --- 29

Table 6: Change in City of Cincinnati by Neighborhood, 2008- Rank 2009 % Change Neighborhood Change 1 Hartwell 27 7 20 285.71% 2 Linwood 10 3 7 233.33% 3 East End 6 2 4 200.00% 4 CBD/Riverfront 8 4 4 100.00% 4 Winton Hills 4 2 2 100.00% 6 East Walnut Hills 21 12 9 75.00% 7 Mount Washington 31 19 12 63.16% 8 Madisonville 78 48 30 62.50% 9 Kennedy Heights 34 21 13 61.90% 10 Riverside 8 5 3 60.00% 11 Roselawn 42 28 14 50.00% 11 Hyde Park 15 10 5 50.00% 13 Pleasant Ridge 24 18 6 33.33% 13 South Cumminsville 4 3 1 33.33% 15 Over-The-Rhine 13 10 3 30.00% 16 Mount Airy 46 36 10 27.78% 17 Carthage 21 18 3 16.67% 17 Clifton 7 6 1 16.67% 19 CUF 20 18 2 11.11% 20 West Price Hill 118 108 10 9.26% 21 Westwood 137 129 8 6.20% 22 Northside 56 54 2 3.70% 23 Mount Auburn 30 29 1 3.45% 24 East Price Hill 83 81 2 2.47% 25 Mount Lookout 10 10 0 0.00% 25 Corryville 9 9 0 0.00% 25 North Fairmount 8 8 0 0.00% 28 College Hill 67 68-1 -1.47% 29 Evanston 40 43-3 -6.98% 30 Sayler Park 18 20-2 -10.00% 30 Walnut Hills 18 20-2 -10.00% 32 Oakley 16 18-2 -11.11% 32 West End 8 9-1 -11.11% 34 Columbia Tusculum 11 13-2 -15.38% 35 Paddock Hills 5 6-1 -16.67% 36 Bond Hill 43 54-11 -20.37% 37 North Avondale 31 43-12 -27.91% 38 California 5 7-2 -28.57% 39 Avondale 37 52-15 -28.85% 40 South Fairmount 18 40-22 -55.00% 41 East Westwood 6 15-9 -60.00% 42 Winton Place 3 8-5 -62.50% 43 Sedamsville 1 3-2 -66.67% 44 Mount Adams 1 4-3 -75.00% 45 Camp Washington 2 9-7 -77.78% 46 Lower Price Hill 1 5-4 -80.00% 46 Millvale 1 5-4 -80.00% 48 Pendleton 1 11-10 -90.91% Fay Apartments 1 --- --- --- Heights 1 --- --- --- 30

Appendix C: Relistings Table 1: Hamilton County Municipalities by, With and Without Duplicates Rank Municipality Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Cincinnati 2280 1921 1205 2 Colerain Township 575 479 295 3 Springfield Township 418 350 201 4 Green Township 276 230 145 5 Forest Park 274 215 125 6 Norwood 160 140 87 7 Delhi Township 180 155 81 8 Anderson Township 147 124 75 9 North College Hill 144 116 68 10 Cheviot 96 73 50 11 Harrison* 78 69 45 12 Reading 64 60 38 13 Sycamore Township 90 74 37 14 Loveland 43 38 31 15 Mount Healthy 61 46 30 16 Golf Manor 58 53 28 16 Silverton 61 48 28 18 Miami Township 56 50 25 18 Springdale 64 52 25 20 Sharonville 55 42 24 21 Cleves 34 32 23 22 Saint Bernard 47 41 22 23 Lockland 35 30 19 24 Deer Park 44 34 18 25 Columbia Township 36 32 17 25 Elmwood Place 29 24 17 25 Fairfax 25 19 17 28 Greenhills 35 28 16 29 Montgomery 42 33 15 29 Blue Ash 40 32 15 29 Madeira 37 27 15 32 Lincoln Heights 33 25 14 33 Symmes Township 35 26 12 34 Wyoming 34 29 10 34 Woodlawn 24 20 10 36 Whitewater Township 23 16 8 37 Indian Hill 18 13 7 37 Newtown 20 14 7 40 Crosby Township 9 9 6 37 Addyston 14 10 7 41 Glendale 14 10 5 41 Mariemont 8 8 5 43 North Bend 4 4 4 45 Amberley Village 12 9 2 44 Evendale 8 7 3 46 Arlington Heights 4 4 1 46 Milford 1 1 1 46 Terrace Park 4 3 1 31

Table 2: City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods by, With and Without Duplicates Rank Neighborhood Listings Listings w/o Duplicates 1 Westwood 246 208 137 2 West Price Hill 210 177 118 3 East Price Hill 142 127 83 4 Madisonville 144 123 78 5 College Hill 148 117 67 6 Northside 82 69 56 7 Mount Airy 76 66 46 8 Bond Hill 84 69 43 9 Roselawn 77 64 42 10 Evanston 77 66 40 11 Avondale 76 66 37 12 Kennedy Heights 71 57 34 13 Mount Washington 55 49 31 13 North Avondale 66 55 31 15 Mount Auburn 57 51 30 16 Hartwell 44 33 27 17 Pleasant Ridge 52 46 24 18 Carthage 42 33 21 18 East Walnut Hills 41 34 21 20 CUF 36 28 20 21 South Fairmount 39 34 18 21 Walnut Hills 35 33 18 21 Sayler Park 33 27 18 25 Hyde Park 24 20 15 24 Oakley 32 28 16 26 Over-The-Rhine 21 20 13 27 Columbia Tusculum 21 19 11 28 Linwood 17 14 10 28 Mount Lookout 20 15 10 30 Corryville 19 17 9 31 CBD/Riverfront 11 10 8 31 North Fairmount 19 17 8 31 Riverside 16 13 8 31 West End 19 16 8 35 Clifton 11 11 7 36 East Westwood 14 12 6 36 East End 18 13 6 38 California 8 7 5 38 Paddock Hills 16 12 5 40 South Cumminsville 10 9 4 40 Winton Hills 9 5 4 42 Winton Place 12 9 3 43 Camp Washington 4 4 2 44 Fay Apartments 1 1 1 44 Heights 1 1 1 44 Lower Price Hill 7 4 1 44 Millvale 2 2 1 44 Mount Adams 1 1 1 44 Pendleton 8 4 1 44 Sedamsville 6 5 1 32

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 755 379 50.20% Bank 2 Bank Of America; BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P.; 825 362 43.88% 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; 551 324 58.80% Citifinancial Mortgage Company, Inc.; ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc.; Citimortgage, Inc. 4 Wells Fargo Bank; Wells Fargo Financial Ohio 1, Inc.; 570 272 47.72% Wachovia Bank 5 JP Morgan Chase Bank; JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC; EMC 486 184 37.86% Mortgage Corporation; Chase Home Finance; Washington Mutual Bank 6 Fifth Third Bank; Fifth Third Mortgage Company 275 174 63.27% 7 HSBC Bank; HSBC Bank USA National Assoc.; HSBC Mortgage 260 150 57.69% Corp.; HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.; Household Realty Corporation; Beneficial Ohio, Inc. 8 Deutsche Bank 319 127 39.81% 9 Bank Of New York; Bank of New York Mellon 257 88 34.24% 10 PNC Bank; PNC Mortgage; National City Bank; National City 164 74 45.12% Mortgage Company; National City Real Estate Services, LLC. 11 PHH Mortgage 69 45 65.22% 12 Huntington National Bank; Sky Bank 63 38 60.32% 13 Aurora Bank; Aurora Loan Services; Lehman Brothers 61 35 57.38% 14 Suntrust Mortgage 46 30 65.22% 15 Nationstar Mortgage 48 28 58.33% 16 GMAC Mortgage 68 27 39.71% 16 Onewest Bank; Indymac Federal Bank 52 27 51.92% 16 Encore Bank; Guardian Savings Bank 34 27 79.41% 19 Third Federal Savings & Loan Association 30 25 83.33% 20 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 35 24 68.57% 21 Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation 42 22 52.38% 21 Everhome Mortgage Company 41 22 53.66% 23 Financial Freedom Acquisition 25 21 84.00% 23 Advantage Bank 24 21 87.50% 25 Midfirst Bank 50 19 38.00% 26 Flagstar Bank 26 16 61.54% 27 Wesbanco Bank 29 15 51.72% 28 Bayview Loan Services 23 11 47.83% 28 Ocwen Loan Servicing 12 11 91.67% 30 Everbank 17 10 58.82% 30 Cinfed Federal Credit Union 11 10 90.91% 32 First Financial Bank; People s Community Bank 19 9 47.37% 32 First Horizon Home Loans 16 9 56.25% 32 Liberty Savings Bank 14 9 64.29% 32 Bramble Savings Bank 11 9 81.82% 33

Rank Lending Institution Listings % Listed 36 Moreequity, Inc 10 8 80.00% 37 RBS Citizens 10 7 70.00% 38 Franklin Savings Bank 9 6 66.67% 38 American General Financial Services 8 6 75.00% 38 Valley Central Savings Bank 6 6 100.00% 41 Robert A Goering Treasurer, Hamilton County, Ohio 19 5 26.32% 41 McCormick 101 5 5 100.00% 43 Key Bank 16 4 25.00% 43 Wright Patt Credit Union 9 4 44.44% 43 Provident Funding Associates 6 4 66.67% 43 Regions Bank 6 4 66.67% 47 Ameribank 7 3 42.86% 47 Centex Home Equity Company 7 3 42.86% 47 Peoples Community Bank 6 3 50.00% 47 American Home Mortgage Servicing 5 3 60.00% 47 Eagle Savings Bank 5 3 60.00% 47 Imperial Capital Bank 5 3 60.00% 53 LNV Corporation 7 2 28.57% 53 Residential Credit Solutions 6 2 33.33% 55 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems 10 1 10.00% 55 Nisbet, Inc 5 1 20.00% 55 Sovereign Bank 5 1 20.00% 34