MNHOC Foreclosures in Minnesota 1st Half 2009
MNHOC Foreclosures in Minnesota 1st Half 2009
Published by:
Prepared by:
Telephone: 612-522-2500
Facsimile: 612-521-1577
www.housinglink.org
[email protected]
In partnership with:
About the Minnesota Home Ownership Center
Recognized nationally as a model of home ownership and foreclosure prevention programming, the
Minnesota Home Ownership Center convenes a network of 50 community-based nonprofit,
government and tribal organizations to deliver homeownership education and foreclosure prevention
services to low- and moderate-income households throughout Minnesota. Learn more at
www.hocmn.org.
About HousingLink
HousingLink is a primary distributor of affordable housing information to service agencies, housing
providers, and policy workers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and selected regions in Greater
Minnesota. Learn more at www.housinglink.org.
This supplement report was commissioned by the Minnesota Home Ownership Center, Greater
Minnesota Housing Fund, Minnesota Housing, and Family Housing Fund. It provides
policymakers and other community leaders with updated Minnesota foreclosure data as they design
solutions to address foreclosures and their impact on Minnesota communities.
This is a follow-up to the Foreclosures in Minnesota (April 2008) report and subsequent
Foreclosures in Minnesota Supplement (February 2009), in which comparable analysis and maps
were presented. HousingLink was contracted to conduct the research and prepare the analysis in
both reports.
• Updated foreclosure counts for all Minnesota counties including the Twin Cites seven-
county metro area and Greater Minnesota to reflect Q1-Q2 2009 (January 1 – June 30)
foreclosures.
• Updated foreclosure rates for all Minnesota counties to compare actual 2009 foreclosures
to 2008 parcel counts 1. The calculation of foreclosure rates makes it possible to compare the
relative impact of foreclosure on areas with different population sizes.
• Change in foreclosure rate methodology that divides total foreclosures by parcels 2 rather
than households. The advantages to such an approach are threefold:
- New methodology more accurately reflects the foreclosure rate where multi-unit rental
properties are concerned (e.g. a single foreclosure on a 10-unit rental property becomes a 1:1
ratio, rather than 1:10). Using households rather than parcels, in the rate calculation,
understates the true foreclosure rate in counties with a relatively high proportion of multi-
unit apartment buildings
- Household counts are estimates based on an increasingly distant Census 2000, whereas
parcels are based on actual, yearly counts.
- There is a greater lag in county population estimates from the MN State Demographer
(2008 numbers are available in late July of 2009) than with parcel data (2009 parcel counts
are available in December of 2009).
1
The previous Foreclosures in Minnesota Supplement (February 2009) report used household estimates to calculate the foreclosure
rate, whereas this supplement report uses residential parcels to calculate foreclosure rate. See the Change in foreclosure rate methodology
update for more information.
2
County parcel data is provided by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and, for purposes of the foreclosure rate, includes property
types 1 (Residential), 2 (Apartment), 5 (Farm with Buildings, >35 Acres), and 13 (Farm with Buildings, <35 acres).
• This report does not include a 2009 foreclosure projection. Reports issued prior to 2009
have included a foreclosure projection. These projections were generated based solely on
recent foreclosure trends with the assumption that the same patterns would continue into the
upcoming year. Due to greater uncertainty about future economic conditions, this semi-
annual report does not include a projection.
Some factors that may contribute to foreclosures include but are not limited to: unstable
economic conditions; increasing unemployment rates; falling housing prices; rising numbers
of mortgage delinquencies; and resetting adjustable rate mortgages. Conversely, more active
intervention and loss mitigation activities on the part of counselors and lenders may help to
reduce the number of foreclosures.
Methodology
To help understand the methods used in this report, it is important to outline Minnesota’s
foreclosure timeline. Data is collected throughout the process, much of which is useful for analyzing
the characteristics of those mortgages and properties that have defaulted.
1
Ramsey County (0.6% change in rate from “household rate” to “parcel rate”), Hennepin County (0.4%), and Benton County (St.
Cloud/Sauk Rapids, 0.4%) were the highest rate changes recorded; a statistic that likely results from a higher percentage of residents in
those counties living in multi-unit rental properties.
After the notice has been published and served, the sheriff’s sale occurs and the sheriff auctions the
property off to the highest bidder, resulting in foreclosure of the mortgage. Following the sale is a
redemption period of up to six months, during which the borrower can redeem the property by
paying the amount of sale plus interest, taxes, fees, or liens on the property. Borrowers who do not
redeem the property by the expiration of the redemption period lose title and right of occupancy in
the property.
1
As of June 15, 2009, MN State Law allows homeowners to delay their foreclosure sale by five months. The homeowner must file for
postponement between the first publication of the Sheriff’s Sale and 15 days prior to the Sale. This reduces the redemption period to
five weeks.
Data Collection
To obtain the number of sheriff’s sales in each county, HousingLink partnered with the University
of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs to contact all Minnesota counties. Counties
were asked to provide HousingLink with the total number of sheriff’s sales that occurred in their
jurisdiction from January 1 to June 30, 2009.
For example, a rate of 1.41 indicates there were 1.41 mortgages foreclosed for every 100 parcels in
the specified location. This could be translated to one mortgage foreclosed for every 71 parcels.
1
Residential mortgages include single-family and multi-family homes.
2
Yearly parcel counts are supplied by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. As parcel counts for 2009 are not available until
December 2009, the foreclosure rate calculation utilizes 2008 parcel counts.
The following pages include figures detailing foreclosures in Minnesota. They include:
More Minnesota foreclosure figures representing historical data can be found online at
www.gmhf.com or www.housinglink.org
Lake of 4
Kit
tso
n Roseau
1
the Wo
21
s od
Marshall
7
Koochiching
Pennington Beltrami 9
8 48
Po
Red Lake Cook
lk 1 9
20
Clearwater
Lake
St. Louis
8
10
Itasca 176
Norman 33
Mahnomen
8 7
Hubbard
Cass
41
49
Becker
Clay
32
41
Wadena
Aitkin
Carlton
Crow Wing
50
41
20
Otter Tail
208
Wilkin
42
6
Mor
Todd
G riso 102
ra
38
Douglas
105
64 c
12 nt 53 n
0 - 50 (n = 58)
abe
62
Traverse
Kan
Ben
51 - 150 (n = 14)
7 St ton
ev 85
e Pope
7 ns 19 Stearns
151 - 250 (n = 6)
Is 208
Sherburne 177
ti
11 347
Swift An
8 t
o
10 ka 251 - 500 (n = 4)
Kandiyohi
igh 07
Wr 4
32 r
ke
501 - 1,000 (n = 2)
Chip 43
39
pew
Mee
Scott
Sibley
ko
7
397
24
ta
ue
Lincoln
ood dh
Redw
Lyon
Le Sueur Ri o o 3
c
23
Nicollet
1
7 G 5
0 25 50 100 Miles
Brown 82 14 e
31 6 Wabasha
21 29
Pipestone
Cottonwood
Watonwan Blue Earth sted on
Dodge
Steele
3 40 a
7
10 159
30
68
59
29
12
«
Ho
Nobles Jackson Martin Faribault Mower Fillmore us
Rock
Freeborn 15 ton
13 7
7
23 21 62 62 22
Foreclosures in Minnesota: A Report Based on Sheriff 's Sale Data (August 2009)
Funded by: MN Home Ownership Center, Greater MN Housing Fund, Family Housing Fund, & MN Housing
# of Foreclosures^
05-06 06-07 07-08
2005 2006 2007 2008 Q1-Q2 2009 % Change % Change % Change
Twin Cities Metro 3,765 7,130 12,968 17,264 6,903 89% 82% 33%
Greater Minnesota 2,707 4,777 7,430 9,000 4,186 76% 56% 21%
Minnesota 6,472 11,907 20,398 26,261 11,089 84% 71% 29%
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^
Twin Cities Metro and Minnesota foreclosure totals have been revised from Foreclosures in Minnesota (February 2009) to reflect new 2005-2008
foreclosure totals from Ramsey County.
# of Foreclosures^
05-06 06-07 07-08
2005 2006 2007 2008 Q1-Q2 2009 % Change % Change % Change
Twin Cities Metro 3,765 7,130 12,968 17,264 6,903 89% 82% 33%
Greater Minnesota 2,707 4,777 7,430 9,000 4,186 76% 56% 21%
Minnesota 6,472 11,907 20,398 26,261 11,089 84% 71% 29%
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^
Twin Cities Metro and Minnesota foreclosure totals have been revised from Foreclosures in Minnesota (February 2009) to reflect new 2005-2008
foreclosure totals from Ramsey County.
# of Foreclosures^
2005 2006 2007 2008 Q1-Q2 2009
Twin Cities Metro 3,765 7,130 12,968 17,264 6,903
Greater Minnesota 2,707 4,777 7,430 9,000 4,186
Minnesota 6,472 11,907 20,398 26,261 11,089
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^
Twin Cities Metro and Minnesota foreclosure totals have been revised from Foreclosures in Minnesota (February 2009) to reflect new 2005-2008
foreclosure totals from Ramsey County.
Aitkin 14 16 16 11 29 21 107
Anoka 475 685 569 556 464 543 3,292
Becker 19 16 12 17 17 15 96
Beltrami 21 22 15 14 26 22 120
Benton 41 44 42 53 40 45 265
Big Stone 1 3 1 2 5 6 18
Blue Earth 34 45 35 39 32 36 221
Brown 11 8 10 11 10 11 61
Carlton 31 38 24 31 15 26 165
Carver 81 70 97 88 77 83 496
Cass 27 38 33 18 14 35 165
Chippewa 6 9 7 3 6 10 41
Chisago 77 103 112 78 84 93 547
Clay 16 22 26 12 20 21 117
Clearwater 10 20 4 1 5 5 45
Cook 1 6 2 0 1 8 18
Cottonwood 3 14 5 4 3 7 36
Crow Wing 104 86 101 69 102 106 568
Dakota 552 554 525 432 323 451 2,837
Dodge 24 34 24 14 15 14 125
Douglas 26 57 30 34 39 23 209
Faribault 11 13 10 6 13 8 61
Fillmore 8 16 7 6 9 13 59
Freeborn 47 20 24 30 26 36 183
Goodhue 55 52 45 36 26 27 241
Grant 2 1 7 3 6 6 25
Hennepin 1,823 2,080 1,895 1,550 1,349 1,373 10,070
Houston 2 8 0 6 6 9 31
Hubbard 7 23 18 19 15 26 108
Isanti* -- -- -- -- 88 120 208
Itasca 26 17 15 14 11 22 105
Jackson 8 7 5 6 4 3 33
Kanabec 33 24 41 26 27 37 188
Kandiyohi 22 30 22 21 18 21 134
Kittson 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Koochiching 7 9 3 8 2 7 36
Lac qui Parle 2 3 3 2 3 1 14
Lake 12 11 10 5 2 6 46
Lake of the Woods 3 5 2 2 3 1 16
Le Sueur 52 49 31 35 43 39 249
Lincoln 2 2 2 4 1 0 11
Lyon 12 13 9 3 13 10 60
Mahnomen 7 7 3 3 3 4 27
Marshall 3 3 0 6 3 4 19
Martin 15 10 16 11 8 15 75
McLeod 27 46 50 36 32 29 220
Meeker 13 27 35 20 11 21 127
Mille Lacs 59 73 64 51 44 61 352
Morrison 31 26 36 23 23 30 169
Mower 40 33 28 29 30 32 192
Murray 6 8 3 2 1 2 3
Nicollet 11 11 22 16 15 16 91
Nobles 8 7 7 2 5 8 37
Norman 5 3 5 3 1 7 24
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^
Sum of four quarters in 2008 for Minnesota and Greater Minnesota does not equal “yearly counts” from Fig. 2-4, as Isanti County was unable to
provide quarterly counts for that year.
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^
Sum of four quarters in 2008 for Minnesota and Greater Minnesota does not equal “yearly counts” from Fig. 2-4, as Isanti County was unable to
provide quarterly counts for that year.
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^
Sum of four quarters in 2008 for Minnesota and Greater Minnesota does not equal “yearly counts” from Fig. 2-4, as Isanti County was unable to
provide quarterly counts for that year.
Q1-Q2 Q1-Q2
Q1 2008 Q2 2008 2008 Total Q1 2009 Q2 2009 2009 Total
Twin Cities Metro 4,251 4,851 9,102 3,237 3,666 6,903
Greater Minnesota 2,089 2,414 4,503 1,920 2,266 4,186
Minnesota 6,334 7,257 13,591 5,157 5,932 11,089
Aitkin 14 16 30 29 21 50
Anoka 475 685 1,160 464 543 1,007
Becker 19 16 35 17 15 32
Beltrami 21 22 43 26 22 48
Benton 41 44 85 40 45 85
Big Stone 1 3 4 5 6 11
Blue Earth 34 45 79 32 36 68
Brown 11 8 19 10 11 21
Carlton 31 38 69 15 26 41
Carver 81 70 151 77 83 160
Cass 27 38 65 14 35 49
Chippewa 6 9 15 6 10 16
Chisago 77 103 180 84 93 177
Clay 16 22 38 20 21 41
Clearwater 10 20 30 5 5 10
Cook 1 6 7 1 8 9
Cottonwood 3 14 17 3 7 10
Crow Wing 104 86 190 102 106 208
Dakota 552 554 1,106 323 451 774
Dodge 24 34 58 15 14 29
Douglas 26 57 83 39 23 62
Faribault 11 13 24 13 8 21
Fillmore 8 16 24 9 13 22
Freeborn 47 20 67 26 36 62
Goodhue 55 52 107 26 27 53
Grant 2 1 3 6 6 12
Hennepin 1,823 2,080 3,903 1,349 1,373 2,722
Houston 2 8 10 6 9 15
Hubbard 7 23 30 15 26 41
Isanti* -- -- -- 88 120 208
Itasca 26 17 43 11 22 33
Jackson 8 7 15 4 3 7
Kanabec 33 24 57 27 37 64
Kandiyohi 22 30 52 18 21 39
Kittson 0 0 0 1 0 1
Koochiching 7 9 16 2 7 9
Lac qui Parle 2 3 5 3 1 4
Lake 12 11 23 2 6 8
Lake of the Woods 3 5 8 3 1 4
Le Sueur 52 49 101 43 39 82
Lincoln 2 2 4 1 0 1
Lyon 12 13 25 13 10 23
Mahnomen 7 7 14 3 4 7
Marshall 3 3 6 3 4 7
Martin 15 10 25 8 15 23
McLeod 27 46 73 32 29 61
Meeker 13 27 40 11 21 32
Mille Lacs 59 73 132 44 61 105
Morrison 31 26 57 23 30 53
Mower 40 33 73 30 32 62
Murray 6 8 14 1 2 3
Nicollet 11 11 22 15 16 31
Nobles 8 7 15 5 8 13
Norman 5 3 8 1 7 8
Olmsted 88 128 216 68 91 159
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
Q1-Q2 Q1-Q2
Q1 2008 Q2 2008 2008 Total Q1 2009 Q2 2009 2009 Total
Twin Cities Metro 4,251 4,851 9,102 3,237 3,666 6,903
Greater Minnesota 2,089 2,414 4,503 1,920 2,266 4,186
Minnesota 6,334 7,257 13,591 5,157 5,932 11,089
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
Lake of 4
Kit
tso
n Roseau
1
the Wo
21
s od
Marshall
7
Koochiching
Pennington Beltrami 9
8 48
Po
Red Lake Cook
lk 1 9
20
Clearwater
Lake
St. Louis
8
10
Itasca 176
Norman 33
Mahnomen
8 7
Hubbard
Cass
41
49
Becker
Clay
32
41
Wadena
Aitkin
Carlton
Crow Wing
50
41
20
Otter Tail
208
Wilkin
42
6
Mille Lacs
Mor
10 e
Todd
G
n
ra riso
38
Douglas
105
Pi
64 c
12 nt 53 n
abe
Traverse
62 Foreclosure Rates
Kan
Ben
0.0% - 0.25% (n = 29)
7 St ton
ev 85
e Pope
7 ns 19 Stearns
0.25% - 0.50% (n = 37)
Is 208
Sherburne
ti
11 Chisago
Swift 347 An 177
8 t
ok
10 a 0.50% - 0.75% (n = 6)
Kandiyohi
igh 07
Wr 4
32 r
ke
pew
Mee
Scott
Sibley
ko
7
397
24
ta
ue
Lincoln
ood dh
Redw
Lyon
Le Sueur Ri o o 3
c
23
Nicollet
1
7 G 5
0 25 50 100 Miles
Brown 82 14 e
31 6 Wabasha
21 29
Pipestone
Cottonwood
Watonwan Blue Earth sted on
Dodge
Steele
3 40 a
7
10 159
30
68
59
29
12
«
Ho
Nobles Jackson Martin Faribault Mower Fillmore us
Rock
Freeborn 15 ton
13 7
7
23 21 62 62 22
Foreclosures in Minnesota: A Report Based on Sheriff 's Sale Data (August 2009)
Funded by: MN Home Ownership Center, Greater MN Housing Fund, Family Housing Fund, & MN Housing
* Foreclosure Rate = the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total residential parcels.
Data Sources: County reported sheriff's sales and 2008 parcel counts from
MN Department of Revenue
page 25 Foreclosures in Minnesota (August 2009 Semi-Annual Report)
HousingLink 612.522.2500
Figure 12: Minnesota County Quarterly Foreclosure Rates^ (sorted by county)
Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009
Twin Cities Metro 0.47 0.53 0.48 0.41 0.35 0.40
Greater Minnesota 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.26
Minnesota 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.31 0.29 0.33
^ Foreclosure rate = the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total residential parcels. Rate calculation for 2008 is based on MN Dept. of
Revenue 2008 parcel counts. 2009 parcel counts are expected to be available in December, 2009; thus, the rate calculation for YTD 2009 is based on
2008 parcel counts.
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
1 Isanti* -- -- 1.53
2 Sherburne 1.27 1.49 1.23
3 Mille Lacs 1.43 1.25 1.14
4 Wright 1.32 1.13 1.06
5 Kanabec 0.91 1.07 1.02
6 Chisago 0.99 1.05 0.97
7 Scott 1.19 1.10 0.95
8 Anoka 1.08 1.05 0.94
9 Pine 0.94 0.70 0.93
10 Crow Wing 0.77 0.69 0.85
11 Ramsey 1.13 0.94 0.85
12 Le Sueur 0.95 0.62 0.77
13 Rice 0.90 0.66 0.76
14 Washington 0.81 0.77 0.76
15 Benton 0.75 0.84 0.75
16 Hennepin 1.03 0.91 0.72
17 Stearns 0.49 0.45 0.68
18 Aitkin 0.39 0.35 0.65
19 Dakota 0.86 0.75 0.60
20 Carver 0.52 0.64 0.55
21 Hubbard 0.37 0.46 0.51
22 Freeborn 0.53 0.43 0.49
23 McLeod 0.58 0.68 0.48
24 Steele 0.65 0.54 0.48
25 Cook 0.35 0.10 0.45
26 Douglas 0.59 0.46 0.44
27 Waseca 0.49 0.35 0.44
28 Mower 0.51 0.40 0.43
29 Cass 0.57 0.45 0.43
30 Grant 0.11 0.35 0.42
31 Dodge 0.85 0.56 0.42
32 Morrison 0.46 0.47 0.42
33 Big Stone 0.15 0.11 0.41
34 Sibley 0.76 0.50 0.40
35 Mahnomen 0.79 0.34 0.40
36 Todd 0.43 0.40 0.39
37 Beltrami 0.34 0.23 0.38
38 Pope 0.20 0.16 0.38
39 Blue Earth 0.43 0.40 0.37
40 Wadena 0.22 0.41 0.37
41 Meeker 0.45 0.61 0.36
42 Traverse 0.10 0.10 0.36
43 Roseau 0.32 0.20 0.35
44 Wabasha 0.46 0.53 0.34
45 Carlton 0.56 0.45 0.33
46 Olmsted 0.45 0.39 0.33
47 Chippewa 0.30 0.20 0.32
48 Goodhue 0.64 0.49 0.32
49 Faribault 0.36 0.24 0.32
50 Nicollet 0.22 0.39 0.32
51 Clearwater 0.88 0.15 0.29
52 Watonwan 0.46 0.30 0.27
53 Lyon 0.29 0.14 0.26
54 Becker 0.29 0.24 0.26
55 Martin 0.28 0.30 0.26
56 Kandiyohi 0.34 0.28 0.26
57 Winona 0.31 0.26 0.25
58 Fillmore 0.27 0.15 0.25
59 Saint Louis 0.32 0.32 0.24
^ Foreclosure rate = the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total residential parcels. Rate calculation for 2008 is based on MN Dept. of
Revenue 2008 parcel counts. 2009 parcel counts are expected to be available in December, 2009; thus, the rate calculation for YTD 2009 is based on
2008 parcel counts.
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.
^ Foreclosure rate = the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total residential parcels. Rate calculation for 2008 is based on MN Dept. of
Revenue 2008 parcel counts. 2009 parcel counts are expected to be available in December, 2009; thus, the rate calculation for YTD 2009 is based on
2008 parcel counts.
* Indicates a county did not maintain part or all of the data requested or was otherwise unable to provide the data.