MN Foreclosure Report 042808

Foreclosures in Minnesota:
A Report Based on County Sheriff’s Sale Data
April 29, 2008
Published by:
Prepared by:
th
600 18 Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55411
Telephone: 612-522-2500
Facsimile: 612-521-1577
www.housinglink.org
info@housinglink.org
About Greater Minnesota Housing Fund
The Greater Minnesota Housing Fund is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to
strengthen families and communities in greater Minnesota through the creation and preservation of
affordable housing. Learn more at www.gmhf.com.
About Family Housing Fund

The Family Housing Fund is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide safe, affordable,
sustainable homes to families and children in the Twin Cities metropolitan area through ongoing
partnerships with the public and private sector. Learn more at www.fhfund.org.
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 Minnesota Housing

Minnesota Housing finances and advances affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-
income Minnesotans to enhance quality of life and foster strong communities. Learn more at
www.mnhousing.gov.
About HousingLink
HousingLink is an independent, politically neutral nonprofit organization that distributes affordable
housing information to service agencies, housing providers, and policymakers in the Twin Cities
seven-county metropolitan area. Learn more at www.housinglink.org.
All rights reserved.

© Copyright 2008.
Table of Contents
Study Purpose and Objectives............................................................................................ 1

Summary of Key Observations ........................................................................................... 2
Methodology...................................................................................................................... 4
Minnesota Foreclosure Figures........................................................................................... 8
Figure 1: Minnesota Foreclosures (2005)…………..……………………………………………….………..9
Figure 2: Minnesota Foreclosures (2006)...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Minnesota Foreclosures (2007)...................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Minnesota Foreclosures (2008 Projected) ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Minnesota Foreclosures (sorted by County)................................................................................... 13
Figure 6: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by 2007 foreclosures)....................................................... 15
Figure 7: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by 2008 projected foreclosures) ....................................... 17
Figure 8: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (2005).............................................................................................. 19
Figure 9: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (2006).............................................................................................. 20
Figure 10: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (2007)............................................................................................ 21
Figure 11: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (2008 Projected) ............................................................................ 22
Figure 12: Minnesota Foreclosure Rate (sorted by County) .......................................................................... 23
Figure 13: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by 2007 foreclosures)..................................................... 25
Figure 14: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by 2008 projected foreclosures) ..................................... 27
Figures 15 & 16: Top 20 Counties Impacted by Foreclosure in 2007 .......................................................... 29
Figures 17 & 18: Top 20 Counties Impacted by Foreclosure in 2008 (Projected).. ...................................... 30
Figure 19: Minnesota Foreclosures in 2005 to 2008 (Projected)................................................................... 31
Figure 20: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates in 2005 to 2008 (Projected) ........................................................... 31
Figure 21: Summary of Minnesota Foreclosures by Year…………………………………………………...32
Figure 22: Summary of Minnesota Foreclosure Rates by Year....................................................................... 32
Study Purpose and Objectives
This report was commissioned by the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, Family Housing Fund,
Minnesota Home Ownership Center, and Minnesota Housing to provide policymakers and other
community leaders with updated Minnesota foreclosure data as they continue to design solutions
that respond to foreclosures and their impact on Minnesota communities. This is a follow-up to
foreclosure reports commissioned by Greater Minnesota Housing Fund in July and October 2007 in
which comparable analysis and maps were presented. HousingLink was contracted to conduct the
research prepare the analysis in each of the reports.
Key updated foreclosure data included in this report are as follows:
• Foreclosure counts updated for all Minnesota counties including the Twin Cites seven-
county metro area 1 and Greater Minnesota to reflect actual 2007 and January 1, 2008 –
March 31, 2008 (Q1 2008) foreclosures.
• Foreclosure rates for all Minnesota counties for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
(Projected). The calculation of foreclosure rates makes it possible to compare the
relative impact of foreclosure on areas with different population sizes.
• 2008 foreclosure projections based on Q1 2008 data and recent Minnesota foreclosure
patterns.
• Minnesota foreclosure trends based on foreclosure information collected from 2005, 2006,
2007 and 2008 (Projected). This information helps to illustrate broad changes in the
number of foreclosures in the Twin Cities seven-county metro area, Greater Minnesota, and
across the entire state of Minnesota in recent years.
1
Twin Cities seven-county metro includes: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties.
Foreclosures in Minnesota: A Report Based on Sheriff’s Sale Data (April 2008) Page 1
HousingLink 612.522.2500
Summary of Key Observations
1. 38,077 mortgages were foreclosed in Minnesota between 2005 and 2007. Another 28,282 are
projected to be foreclosed in 2008 — While the total number of foreclosures continues to
increase substantially in Minnesota, the majority of foreclosures are occurring in the Twin Cities
seven-county metro and in a subset of counties in Greater Minnesota. For example, in 2007 the
Twin Cities seven-county metro 2 accounted for 64% of total foreclosures. The 10 counties in
Greater Minnesota with the next highest number of foreclosures 3 accounted for 19%, while the
70 remaining Greater Minnesota counties accounted for 17%. Detailed information regarding
foreclosure counts by county can be found in Figure 5.
Foreclosures in Minnesota by Region

2005 - 2008 (Projected)
Total # of foreclosures
30,000
25,000
20,000 Minnesota
15,000 Twin Cities Metro
10,000 Greater MN
5,000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008
(P ro jected)*
Year
2. One mortgage foreclosed for every 54 households in Minnesota from 2005-2007—If 2008
foreclosure projections hold true, approximately 28,000 more Minnesota mortgages will be
foreclosed by the end of the year. This would translate into one mortgage foreclosure occurring
for every 31 households 4 from the beginning of 2005 to the end of 2008.
When looking at 2007 alone, there was one mortgage foreclosure for every 100 households in
Minnesota. Overall, the highest rates of foreclosures in 2007 were in Greater Minnesota
counties directly surrounding the Twin Cities seven-county metro area (Sherburne, Isanti, Mille
Lacs, Pine, Wright, Chisago, Le Sueur and Kanabec). Detailed information on foreclosure rates
by county can be found in Figure 12.
2
Twin Cities Metro counties in order of highest to lowest number of foreclosures in 2007: Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Dakota,
Washington, Scott, and Carver
3
Top 10 Greater Minnesota Counties with the highest number of foreclosures in 2007 (in order from highest to lowest): Wright,
Sherburne, Stearns, St. Louis, Olmsted, Isanti, Chisago, Rice, Crow Wing, and Mille Lacs
4
This foreclosure rate varies from other foreclosure rates calculated in this report in that it sums foreclosure counts over multiple years
to compare to the 2005 household count.
Page 2 Foreclosures in Minnesota: A Report Based on Sheriff’s Sale Data (April 2008)
3. While 2008 remains on track to be another record-breaking year, current indications suggest
the pace of foreclosure increase is slowing — HousingLink’s newly updated projection for
2008, which is based on Q1 2008 sheriff’s sales counts and a refined projection methodology,
indicates that 2008 foreclosures will increase statewide by 39% over 2007’s record-breaking
level. This projection is based on historical patterns and does not take into consideration the
potential impact of remediation efforts, the effect of previously foreclosed homes on the state of
the current housing stock, resetting adjustable rate mortgages, changes in mortgage market
conditions, variations in home sale prices, or other factors related to changes in the economy. It
is lower than a 2008 projection previously published by HousingLink in November 2007 5.
07-08
2008
2007 Q1 2008 Percent
foreclosures
foreclosures foreclosures Change
(Projected)
(Projected)
Twin Cities Metro Totals 12,974 4,213 19,936 54%
Greater MN Totals 7,430 2,175 8,346 12%
Minnesota Totals 20,404 6,388 28,282 39%
4. Nationally reported foreclosure figures continue to significantly under-report the situation in

Minnesota —There continues to be a dramatic difference between the number of foreclosures
recorded by HousingLink and RealtyTrac®, a national foreclosure data source that is frequently
cited in the media. Although RealtyTrac’s counts include properties that are in three stages of
foreclosure (default, notice of sheriff’s sale, and redemption), which should yield a higher
number of foreclosures than obtained by HousingLink, its 2007 foreclosure count is nearly
7,000 less.
Minnesota Foreclosures
Organization 2006 2007
HousingLink 11,207 20,404
RealtyTrac® 5,995 6 13,615 7
5. All Minnesota counties are now tracking foreclosure counts as of 2008 — As of April 2008, all
counties were able to provide HousingLink with sheriff’s sales counts, which is the measure used
in this report to track foreclosures. For 2005, 2006 and 2007, the number of counties that did
not report data for this report was 13, 9 and 1, respectively.
5
2008 foreclosure projections previously released by HousingLink predicted a range of 29,000 to 37,000 foreclosures for 2008 and
were based on data available as of November 2007. Current 2008 foreclosure projection counts are revised based on data reported for
Q1 2008 and recent foreclosure trends.
6
RealtyTrac. See ‘‘More Than 1.2 Million Foreclosure Filings Reported in 2006.’’
http://www.realtytrac.com/ContentManagement/pressrelease.aspx?ChannelID=9&ItemID=1855&accnt=64847.
7
RealtyTrac. See “U.S. Foreclosure Activity Increases 75% in 2007.”
http://www.realtytrac.com/ContentManagement/pressrelease.aspx?ChannelID=9&ItemID=3988&accnt=64847
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.
Overview of foreclosure process
There are two types of foreclosure processes in Minnesota:

1) Judicial Foreclosure, which “is conducted like any other form of civil lawsuit” 8
2) Foreclosure by Advertisement, which is a type of Non-Judicial Foreclosure.
Since the large majority of Minnesota foreclosures occur by Advertisement, that process is described
in more detail below.
Foreclosure by Advertisement: Foreclosures in Minnesota take place at the county level and are
regulated, for the most part, by state legislation. The foreclosure process can start as early as 30 days
after a borrower first misses a mortgage payment. Once the mortgage is in delinquency, the lender
8
Source: Professor Ann M. Burkhart, University of Minnesota Law School. Federal Reserve Foreclosure Conference October 2007.
empowers an attorney who then files notice of pendency against the borrower, starting the
foreclosure process. Shortly thereafter, the attorney publishes a foreclosure sale notice in a local
newspaper (at least six weeks before the date of the sheriff’s sale) and the county serves the filing to
the homeowner. At any point before the sheriff’s sale, the property owner can reinstate the mortgage
by paying all dues, fees and expenses.
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. 9 Borrowers who do not
redeem the property by the expiration of the redemption period lose title and right of occupancy in
the property.
Sheriff’s Sale Records
Sheriff’s sale records are the primary data that identify foreclosed properties and are identified as
“foreclosures” within this report. However, it is helpful to understand the following:
Sheriff’s sale records do not reflect the total number of properties that enter the foreclosure
process.
Some portion of properties identified in sheriff’s sale records do not result in actual loss of title
and occupancy because they are redeemed within the allowed timeframe.
A small percentage of sheriff’s sale records do not relate to residential mortgages. According to a
previous study conducted by the Federal Reserve and Macalester College, less than 2 percent of
Minneapolis-St. Paul properties sold at sheriff’s sales are commercial. Also, HousingLink
estimates approximately 2 percent of properties in its foreclosure database are the result of
association liens. Taking into account these two figures, it is estimated that at least 95 percent of
the foreclosures in this study represent residential properties.
Data Collection
To obtain the number of sheriff’s sales in each county, HousingLink contacted sheriff’s offices from
all Minnesota counties. Counties were asked to provide HousingLink with the total number of
sheriff’s sales for all of 2007 and Q1 2008. When available, HousingLink compiled county sheriff’s
sale data that was posted online. As of April 2008, three Twin Cities metro area counties (Dakota,
Hennepin, Washington) and one county in Greater Minnesota (Crow Wing) were known to
provide this data online.
• 100% of counties were able to provide data for Q1 2008
• 99% of counties were able to provide updated data for 2007
9
Information courtesy of M. Grover. See http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/cd/06-4/foreclosure.cfm?js=0.
2008 Foreclosure Projection
The 2008 foreclosure projection is based solely on historical foreclosure patterns. The 2008
projection assumes the ratio of foreclosures that occurred in Q1 2007 to total foreclosures in 2007 is
a reasonable estimate of the share of total 2008 foreclosures that will occur in Q1 2008. This
projection does not take into account the potential impact of remediation efforts, the effect of
previously foreclosed homes on the state of the current housing stock, resetting adjustable rate
mortgages, changes in mortgage market conditions, variations in home sale prices or other factors
related to changes in the economy.
Each county’s 2008 foreclosure projection is reflective of its own foreclosure pattern from the
previous year and adjusted by the region’s average to account for overall foreclosure trends. The
region’s average Q1 percentage was utilized in generating 2008 foreclosure projections for counties
with insufficient 2007 data.
For the purposes of this projection, three regions were determined based on their similar historic
foreclosure patterns.
• Region 1: The Twin Cities seven-county metro area 10

o Q1 2007 on average represented 21% of all foreclosures for 2007
• Region 2: The 22 Greater Minnesota counties directly surrounding the Twin Cities metro 11
• Region 3: The 58 remaining Greater Minnesota counties 12
The formula used to generate each individual county’s projection rate is as follows:
[(The county’s actual Q1 2007 percent) + (The region’s average Q1 2007 percent)] / 2
Once a rate of projection was determined for each county, it was applied to the Q1 2008 actual
sheriff’s sale occurrences in the county to reach a 2008 projection:
[Q1 2008 sheriff’s sale occurrences] / [Individual county projection rate]
The Minnesota 2008 foreclosure projection is lower than a previously released 2008 foreclosure
projection by HousingLink in November 2007 13.
10
Counties in Region 1 include: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington
11
Counties in Region 2 include: Benton, Blue Earth, Chisago, Dodge, Goodhue, Isanti, Kanabec, Le Sueur, McLeod, Meeker, Mille
Lacs, Nicollet, Olmsted, Pine, Rice, Sherburne, Sibley, Stearns, Steele, Wabasha, Waseca, and Wright
12
Counties in Region 3 include: Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Big Stone, Brown, Carlton, Cass, Chippewa, Clay, Clearwater, Cook,
Cottonwood, Crow Wing, Douglas, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Grant, Houston, Hubbard, Itasca, Jackson, Kandiyohi, Kittson,
Koochiching, Lac qui Parle, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Lincoln, Lyon, Mahnomen, Marshall, Martin, Morrison, Mower, Murray,
Nobles, Norman, Otter Tail, Pennington, Pipestone, Polk, Pope, Red Lake, Redwood, Renville, Rock, Roseau, St. Louis, Stevens,
Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wadena, Watonwan, Wilkin, Winona, and Yellow Medicine
Explanations for the lower projection include:
A. The November 2007 projection was based strictly on the Twin Cities seven-county
metro area trends. Foreclosures in the Twin Cities seven-county metro area grew
considerably faster in the previous year than in Minnesota as a whole. The updated 2008
projection methodology is now tailored to each individual county’s foreclosure patterns
of the previous year.
B. Actual Q1 2008 (January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008) sheriff’s sale numbers were
lower than anticipated, which may reflect a temporary or sustained slowdown in the rate
of increase of foreclosures throughout the remainder of the year.
Foreclosure Rate Metric
The calculation of a foreclosure rate makes it possible to compare the relative impact of foreclosures
on areas with different population sizes as well as over time. The foreclosure rate used in this report
identifies the number of sheriff’s sales as a percent of total 2005 households (as reported by the
Minnesota State Demographic Center’s Population Projections).
[Number of sheriff’s sales] / [for every 100 households]
For example, a rate of 1.41 indicates there were 1.41 mortgages foreclosed for every 100 households
in the specified location.
The foreclosure rate identified in the Summary of Key Findings translates the calculated rate to one
foreclosed mortgage per a given number of households. This foreclosure rate varies from other
foreclosure rates calculated in this report in that it sums foreclosure counts over multiple years to
compare to the 2005 household count.
13
Previously released 2008 foreclosure projection in November 2007 estimated a range of 29,000 – 37,000 foreclosures for 2008.
Updated 2008 foreclosure projection estimates approximately 28,000 foreclosures for 2008.
Minnesota Foreclosure Figures
The following pages include figures detailing foreclosures in Minnesota. They include:
Four maps showing total number of foreclosures by

Foreclosure Count Maps p. 9-12
county for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 (Projected).
Three tables detailing the number of foreclosures.

The first is sorted by county, the second is sorted in
Foreclosures by County descending order by the number of foreclosures in p. 13-18
2007 and the third is sorted in descending order by
the number of foreclosures projected for 2008.
Four maps showing foreclosure rates by county for

Foreclosure Rate Maps p. 19-22
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 (Projected).
Three tables detailing foreclosure rates. The first is

sorted by county, the second is sorted in descending
Foreclosure Rates by County order by the foreclosure rate for 2007 and the third is p. 23-28
sorted in descending order by the foreclosure rate
projected for 2008.
Four tables detailing the top 20 impacted counties

Top 20 Impacted Counties measured by number of foreclosures and foreclosure p. 29-30
rates for 2007 and 2008 (Projected).
Two line graphs representing foreclosure trends for

the Twin Cities seven-county metro, Greater
Minnesota Foreclosure Minnesota and the entire state of Minnesota for 2005
p. 31
Trends through 2008 (Projected). The first line graph
represents the change in the total number of
foreclosures and the second by foreclosure rate.
One table detailing the number of counties in each

Summary of Minnesota
foreclosure category for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 p. 32
Foreclosures by Year
(Projected).
One table detailing the number of counties in each

Summary of Minnesota
foreclosure rate category for 2005, 2006, 2007 and p. 32
Foreclosure Rates by Year
2008 (Projected).
Figure 1
Minnesota Foreclosures (2005)
by County
The actual number of foreclosures is indicated below each county name
Lake of the Wood

Kittson Roseau
19
Marshall 2
Koochiching
Pennington 19
12
Beltrami
Red Lake 18 Cook
4 5
Polk
Clearwater
22 Lake
St. Louis
10
4
219
Itasca
Norman Mahnomen 77
7 6
Hubbard
Cass
Clay Becker 33
36 25
Wadena
Aitkin Carlton
Crow Wing
23
18 41
Wilkin Otter Tail
22 59 Total Foreclosures
Pine 0 - 50 (n = 48)
Todd
Morrison 84
Kanabec
36
Mille Lacs
Grant Douglas 52
35
10 51 - 100 (n = 14)
Traverse
44
61
3
Benton 101 - 250 (n = 8)

Stevens Pope 36
Big Stone 9 Stearns Isanti
136 80 Chisago 251 - 500 (n = 1)
7 Sherburne 108
Swift 210
10 Anoka 501 - 1,000 (n = 2)
Kandiyohi
Ramsey
Wright 520
Washington
Meeker
68
Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 86 Hennepin 626

> 1,000 (n = 1)
244
12 1681
McLeod Do not maintain data (n = 13)
56 Carver
Yellow Medicine
20 Renville 81
Scott Dakota
Sibley 148 459 0 25 50 100 Miles
25
Lincoln Lyon Redwood
3 Goodhue
16 21 Nicollet Le Sueur Rice
39 79 Wabasha
Brown 28
20
Pipestone Murray Blue Earth Waseca Steele Dodge
Cottonwood Olmsted
11 10 Watonwan 57 Winona
11 23 64 158
12
Rock
3
Nobles Jackson
18
Martin
26
Faribault
19
Foreclosures in Minnesota: A Report Report Based on Sheriff's Sale Data (April 2008)
Freeborn
80
Mower
103
Fillmore
29
Houston
8
«
Funded by: Greater MN Housing Fund, Family Housing Fund, MN Home Ownership Center, & MN Housing
Data Source: HousingLink (Sheriff's Sales by County)
MN State Demographic Center (2005 Household projection)
Map Created by: Elissa Schloesser
Figure 2
by County
Lake of the Wood

Kittson Roseau
2 27
Marshall 3
Koochiching
Pennington 22
7
Beltrami
Red Lake 28 Cook
1 4
Polk
Clearwater
26 Lake
St. Louis
16
6
319
Itasca
Norman Mahnomen 64
14 5
Hubbard Cass
35 78
Clay Becker
44 29
Wadena
Aitkin Carlton
Crow Wing
7
35 46
Wilkin Otter Tail
23 92 Total Foreclosures
Pine
Todd 0 - 50 (n = 47)
Morrison 116
Mille Lacs
Kanabec
Grant 48
Douglas 77
103
21
Traverse
64
40 51 - 100 (n = 13)
9
Benton
Stevens Pope 98
101 - 250 (n = 10)
Stearns Isanti
Big Stone 13
219 196 Chisago
6 Sherburne 251 - 500 (n = 4)
341 172
Swift
16 Anoka
Kandiyohi
Ramsey 501 - 1,000 (n = 2)

Wright 849
Washington
Meeker
53
Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 94 Hennepin 1407 > 1,000 (n = 2)

11
414
3042
McLeod Carver
Yellow Medicine 72 Do not maintain data (n = 9)
18 Renville 119
Scott Dakota
Sibley 328 880 0 25 50 100 Miles
8 42
Lincoln Lyon Redwood Goodhue
Brown 70 147 Wabasha
35 38
Cottonwood Olmsted Winona
14 13 Watonwan 101
24 44 91 77 237 39
26
Rock
10
Nobles Jackson
8
Martin
44
Faribault
36
Freeborn
95
Mower
146
Fillmore
36
Houston
14
«
Figure 3
by County
Lake of the Woods

Kittson Roseau
2 27
9
Marshall
9
Koochiching
Pennington 17
11
Beltrami
Red Lake 78 Cook
1 3
Polk
30 Lake
Clearwater St Louis
32
7 359
14 3 Itasca
Norman Mahnomen 73
Hubbard
63 Cass
Clay Becker
91
70 50
Wadena Aitkin Carlton

25 Crow Wing
47 79
Total Foreclosures
Wilkin Otter Tail
231
31 89
0 - 50 (n = 42)
Pine
Todd 51 - 100 (n = 17)
Morrison 217
Grant 68
Douglas
Mille Lacs
93 Kanabec
14 78 97 101 - 250 (n = 13)
Traverse
229
3 Benton
Stevens Pope 176 251 - 500 (n = 6)
Big Stone Stearns Isanti
19 Chisago
7 375
Sherburne 322 501 - 1,000 (n = 4)
307
673
Swift Anoka
27 Wright 1680 Ramsey 1,001 - 2,500 (n = 3)
Kandiyohi Meeker
Washington
114 753
Chippewa 72
Lac Qui Parle Hennepin 2352 > 2,500 (n = 1)
11 15 5561
878
McLeod Carver
Yellow Medicine 142 287
Do not maintain data (n = 1)
Renville
12 Scott Dakota
47
Sibley 606 1610 0 25 50 100 Miles
54
4 67 29 32 Nicollet Le Sueur Rice 153
49 174 237 Wabasha
Brown 47

12 10 19 Watonwan 143 20 123 66 342 58
20
Rock
15
Nobles
18
Jackson
18
Martin
54
Faribault
39
110
Freeborn Mower
142
Fillmore
43
Houston
10
«
Figure 4
Minnesota Foreclosures (2008 Projected)*
by County
Lake of the Woods

Kittson Roseau
2 26
12
Marshall
10
Koochiching
Pennington 22
11
Beltrami
Red Lake 87 Cook
1 2
Polk
Clearwater
36 Lake
St Louis
40
20
431
Itasca
Norman Mahnomen 92
17 22
Hubbard
29 Cass
Clay Becker 90
52 84

Crow Wing
16 67 136
359
Wilkin Otter Tail Total Foreclosures

35 60
Pine 0 - 50 (n = 42)
Todd 190
Morrison
Kanabec
Grant 70
Mille Lacs
Douglas 90 51 - 150 (n = 18)

6 83
101
275
Traverse
4 151 - 250 (n = 11)
Benton
Stevens Pope 176
7 15 Stearns Isanti
Big Stone 463 Sherburne 404 Chisago 251 - 500 (n = 8)
5 559 249
Swift 501 - 1,000 (n = 1)
Anoka
31 Ramsey
Kandiyohi Wright 2268
Washington
Meeker 1190
76 43 1,001 - 2,500 (n = 4)
Lac Qui Parle Chippewa Hennepin 3419
7 21
8585
1393
93
McLeod Carver
> 2,500 (n = 3)
Yellow Medicine Renville 393
10 Scott Dakota
52
Sibley 1241 2637 0 25 50 100 Miles
68
7 45 20 49 Nicollet Le Sueur Rice 220 78
272 Wabasha
Brown 51 229
Pipestone Murray Blue Earth Waseca Steele Dodge 70

3 13 10 Watonwan 125
41 24 142 73 347
Rock
17
Nobles
28
Jackson
31
Martin
42
Faribault
35
Freeborn
192
Mower
123
Fillmore
23
Houston
7
«
* Projected 2008 sheriff's sales is an estimate based on the number of sheriff's sales reported for Q1 2008.
Figure 5: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by County)
# of Foreclosures # of Foreclosures 07-08
05-06 06-07
Percent
Percent Percent Q1 2008
1
2005 2006 2007 Change
Change Change 2008 (Projected) (Projected)
TC Metro Totals 3,759 7,039 12,974 87% 84% 4,213 19,936 54%
2 3
Greater MN Totals 2,707 4,168 7,430 48% 48% 2,175 8,346 12%
4
Minnesota Totals 6,466 11,207 20,404 73% 71% 6,388 28,282 39%
Aitkin 18 35 47 94% 34% 14 67 43%

Anoka 520 849 1,680 63% 98% 475 2,268 35%
Becker 25 29 50 16% 72% 19 84 69%
Beltrami 18 28 78 56% 179% 21 87 12%
Benton 36 98 176 172% 80% 41 176 0%
Big Stone 7 6 7 -14% 17% 1 5 -34%
Blue Earth 57 101 143 77% 42% 34 125 -13%
Brown 20 35 32 75% -9% 11 49 54%
Carlton 41 46 79 12% 72% 31 136 73%
Carver 81 119 287 47% 141% 81 393 37%
Cass 33 78 91 136% 17% 27 90 -1%
Chippewa* 15 -- -- 6 21 38%
Chisago 108 172 307 59% 78% 77 249 -19%
Clay 36 44 70 22% 59% 16 52 -26%
Clearwater 4 6 7 50% 17% 10 20 184%
Cook 5 4 3 -20% -25% 1 2 -30%
Cottonwood 11 24 19 118% -21% 3 10 -46%
Crow Wing* 231 -- -- 104 359 55%
Dakota 459 880 1,610 92% 83% 552 2,637 64%
Dodge* 77 66 -- -14% 24 73 10%
Douglas 44 40 78 -9% 95% 26 83 7%
Faribault 19 36 39 89% 8% 11 35 -10%
Fillmore 29 36 43 24% 19% 8 23 -47%
Freeborn 80 95 110 19% 16% 47 192 74%
Goodhue* 153 -- -- 55 220 44%
Grant 10 21 14 110% -33% 2 6 -56%
Hennepin 1,681 3,042 5,561 81% 83% 1,823 8,585 54%
Houston 8 14 10 75% -29% 2 7 -27%
Hubbard* 35 63 -- 80% 7 29 -54%
Isanti 80 196 322 145% 64% 105 404 25%
Itasca 77 64 73 -17% 14% 26 92 26%
Jackson 18 8 18 -56% 125% 8 31 74%
Kanabec 35 64 97 83% 52% 33 101 4%
Kandiyohi 68 53 72 -22% 36% 22 76 5%
Kittson* 2 2 -- 0% 0 2 0%
Koochiching 19 22 17 16% -23% 7 22 28%
Lac qui Parle 12 11 11 -8% 0% 2 7 -35%
Lake 10 16 32 60% 100% 12 40 24%
Lake of the Woods 2 3 9 50% 200% 3 12 30%
Le Sueur 39 70 174 79% 149% 52 272 56%
Lincoln 3 8 4 167% -50% 2 7 85%
Lyon 16 23 67 44% 191% 12 45 -32%
Mahnomen 6 5 3 -17% -40% 7 22 649%
Marshall* 9 -- -- 3 10 15%
05-06 06-07
Percent
1
2005 2006 2007 Change
Martin 26 44 54 69% 23% 15 42 -22%
McLeod 56 72 142 29% 97% 27 93 -35%
Meeker 86 94 114 9% 21% 13 43 -63%
Mille Lacs 61 103 229 69% 122% 59 275 20%
Morrison 52 77 93 48% 21% 31 90 -3%
Mower 103 146 142 42% -3% 40 123 -13%
Murray 10 13 10 30% -23% 6 13 35%
Nicollet* 49 -- -- 11 51 4%
Nobles* 18 -- -- 8 28 53%
Norman 7 14 14 100% 0% 5 17 24%
Olmsted 158 237 342 50% 44% 88 347 1%
Otter Tail 59 92 89 56% -3% 18 60 -33%
Pennington 12 7 11 -42% 57% 5 11 -2%
Pine 84 116 217 38% 87% 51 190 -12%
Pipestone 11 14 12 27% -14% 1 3 -79%
Polk 22 26 30 18% 15% 7 36 20%
Pope 9 13 19 44% 46% 3 15 -20%
Ramsey 626 1,407 2,352 125% 67% 737 3,419 45%
Red Lake 4 1 1 -75% 0% 0 1 0%
Redwood 21 30 29 43% -3% 6 20 -31%
Renville* 47 -- -- 15 52 10%
Rice 79 147 237 86% 61% 60 229 -3%
Rock 3 10 15 233% 50% 3 17 12%
Roseau 19 27 27 42% 0% 10 26 -4%
Scott 148 328 606 122% 85% 248 1,241 105%
Sherburne 210 341 673 62% 97% 125 559 -17%
Sibley 25 42 54 68% 29% 18 68 26%
St. Louis 219 319 359 46% 13% 113 431 20%
Stearns 136 219 375 61% 71% 119 463 23%
Steele 64 91 123 42% 35% 39 142 15%
Stevens* 0 -- -- 2 7 --
Swift 10 16 27 60% 69% 8 31 16%
Todd 36 48 68 33% 42% 22 70 3%
Traverse 3 9 3 200% -67% 2 4 39%
Wabasha 28 38 47 36% 24% 24 78 67%
Wadena 23 7 25 -70% 257% 4 16 -35%
Waseca 23 44 20 91% -55% 10 24 18%
Washington 244 414 878 70% 112% 297 1,393 59%
Watonwan 12 26 20 117% -23% 10 41 104%
Wilkin 22 23 31 5% 35% 8 35 14%
Winona* 39 58 -- 49% 24 70 21%
Wright* 753 -- -- 268 1,190 58%
Yellow Medicine 20 18 12 -10% -33% 5 10 -13%
* County did not maintain part or all of the data requested or declined to provide the data.
1
2008 Foreclosures (Projected) is an estimate based on the number of sheriff's sales reported for Q1 2008. Actual numbers will vary
depending on conditions of the remainder of the year.
2
Total percentages are calculated based on the totals in that row and excludes counties that did not report data for 2005 or 2006. It does not average the percent
change column, as missing data may distort the result. Percent change based on total numbers would equal 54%
3
4
Figure 6: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by 2007 foreclosures)
05-06 06-07
Percent
1
2005 2006 2007 Change
TC Metro Totals 3,759 7,039 12,974 87% 84% 4,213 19,936 54%
2 3
4
1 Hennepin 1,681 3,042 5,561 81% 83% 1,823 8,585 54%

2 Ramsey 626 1,407 2,352 125% 67% 737 3,419 45%
3 Anoka 520 849 1,680 63% 98% 475 2,268 35%
4 Dakota 459 880 1,610 92% 83% 552 2,637 64%
5 Washington 244 414 878 70% 112% 297 1,393 59%
6 Wright* 753 -- -- 268 1,190 58%
7 Sherburne 210 341 673 62% 97% 125 559 -17%
8 Scott 148 328 606 122% 85% 248 1,241 105%
9 Stearns 136 219 375 61% 71% 119 463 23%
10 St. Louis 219 319 359 46% 13% 113 431 20%
11 Olmsted 158 237 342 50% 44% 88 347 1%
12 Isanti 80 196 322 145% 64% 105 404 25%
13 Chisago 108 172 307 59% 78% 77 249 -19%
14 Carver 81 119 287 47% 141% 81 393 37%
15 Rice 79 147 237 86% 61% 60 229 -3%
16 Crow Wing* 231 -- -- 104 359 55%
17 Mille Lacs 61 103 229 69% 122% 59 275 20%
18 Pine 84 116 217 38% 87% 51 190 -12%
19 Benton 36 98 176 172% 80% 41 176 0%
20 Le Sueur 39 70 174 79% 149% 52 272 56%
21 Goodhue* 153 -- -- 55 220 44%
22 Blue Earth 57 101 143 77% 42% 34 125 -13%
23 McLeod 56 72 142 29% 97% 27 93 -35%
24 Mower 103 146 142 42% -3% 40 123 -13%
25 Steele 64 91 123 42% 35% 39 142 15%
26 Meeker 86 94 114 9% 21% 13 43 -63%
27 Freeborn 80 95 110 19% 16% 47 192 74%
28 Kanabec 35 64 97 83% 52% 33 101 4%
29 Morrison 52 77 93 48% 21% 31 90 -3%
30 Cass 33 78 91 136% 17% 27 90 -1%
31 Otter Tail 59 92 89 56% -3% 18 60 -33%
32 Carlton 41 46 79 12% 72% 31 136 73%
33 Beltrami 18 28 78 56% 179% 21 87 12%
34 Douglas 44 40 78 -9% 95% 26 83 7%
35 Itasca 77 64 73 -17% 14% 26 92 26%
36 Kandiyohi 68 53 72 -22% 36% 22 76 5%
37 Clay 36 44 70 22% 59% 16 52 -26%
38 Todd 36 48 68 33% 42% 22 70 3%
39 Lyon 16 23 67 44% 191% 12 45 -32%
40 Dodge* 77 66 -- -14% 24 73 10%
41 Hubbard* 35 63 -- 80% 7 29 -54%
42 Winona* 39 58 -- 49% 24 70 21%
43 Martin 26 44 54 69% 23% 15 42 -22%
44 Sibley 25 42 54 68% 29% 18 68 26%
05-06 06-07
Percent
1
2005 2006 2007 Change
45 Becker 25 29 50 16% 72% 19 84 69%
46 Nicollet* 49 -- -- 11 51 4%
47 Aitkin 18 35 47 94% 34% 14 67 43%
48 Renville* 47 -- -- 15 52 10%
49 Wabasha 28 38 47 36% 24% 24 78 67%
50 Fillmore 29 36 43 24% 19% 8 23 -47%
51 Faribault 19 36 39 89% 8% 11 35 -10%
52 Brown 20 35 32 75% -9% 11 49 54%
53 Lake 10 16 32 60% 100% 12 40 24%
54 Wilkin 22 23 31 5% 35% 8 35 14%
55 Polk 22 26 30 18% 15% 7 36 20%
56 Redwood 21 30 29 43% -3% 6 20 -31%
57 Roseau 19 27 27 42% 0% 10 26 -4%
58 Swift 10 16 27 60% 69% 8 31 16%
59 Wadena 23 7 25 -70% 257% 4 16 -35%
60 Waseca 23 44 20 91% -55% 10 24 18%
61 Watonwan 12 26 20 117% -23% 10 41 104%
62 Cottonwood 11 24 19 118% -21% 3 10 -46%
63 Pope 9 13 19 44% 46% 3 15 -20%
64 Jackson 18 8 18 -56% 125% 8 31 74%
65 Nobles* 18 -- -- 8 28 53%
66 Koochiching 19 22 17 16% -23% 7 22 28%
67 Chippewa* 15 -- -- 6 21 38%
68 Rock 3 10 15 233% 50% 3 17 12%
69 Grant 10 21 14 110% -33% 2 6 -56%
70 Norman 7 14 14 100% 0% 5 17 24%
71 Pipestone 11 14 12 27% -14% 1 3 -79%
72 Yellow Medicine 20 18 12 -10% -33% 5 10 -13%
73 Lac qui Parle 12 11 11 -8% 0% 2 7 -35%
74 Pennington 12 7 11 -42% 57% 5 11 -2%
75 Houston 8 14 10 75% -29% 2 7 -27%
76 Murray 10 13 10 30% -23% 6 13 35%
77 Lake of the Woods 2 3 9 50% 200% 3 12 30%
78 Marshall* 9 -- -- 3 10 15%
79 Big Stone 7 6 7 -14% 17% 1 5 -34%
80 Clearwater 4 6 7 50% 17% 10 20 184%
81 Lincoln 3 8 4 167% -50% 2 7 85%
82 Cook 5 4 3 -20% -25% 1 2 -30%
83 Mahnomen 6 5 3 -17% -40% 7 22 649%
84 Traverse 3 9 3 200% -67% 2 4 39%
85 Kittson* 2 2 -- 0% 0 2 0%
86 Red Lake 4 1 1 -75% 0% 0 1 0%
87 Stevens* 0 -- -- 2 7 --
1
2
3
4
Figure 7: Minnesota County Foreclosures (sorted by 2008 projected foreclosures)
05-06 06-07
Percent
1
2005 2006 2007 Change
TC Metro Totals 3,759 7,039 12,974 87% 84% 4,213 19,936 54%
2 3
4
1 Hennepin 1,681 3,042 5,561 81% 83% 1,823 8,585 54%

2 Ramsey 626 1,407 2,352 125% 67% 737 3,419 45%
3 Dakota 459 880 1,610 92% 83% 552 2,637 64%
4 Anoka 520 849 1,680 63% 98% 475 2,268 35%
5 Washington 244 414 878 70% 112% 297 1,393 59%
6 Scott 148 328 606 122% 85% 248 1,241 105%
7 Wright* 753 -- -- 268 1,190 58%
8 Sherburne 210 341 673 62% 97% 125 559 -17%
9 Stearns 136 219 375 61% 71% 119 463 23%
10 St. Louis 219 319 359 46% 13% 113 431 20%
11 Isanti 80 196 322 145% 64% 105 404 25%
12 Carver 81 119 287 47% 141% 81 393 37%
13 Crow Wing* 231 -- -- 104 359 55%
14 Olmsted 158 237 342 50% 44% 88 347 1%
15 Mille Lacs 61 103 229 69% 122% 59 275 20%
16 Le Sueur 39 70 174 79% 149% 52 272 56%
17 Chisago 108 172 307 59% 78% 77 249 -19%
18 Rice 79 147 237 86% 61% 60 229 -3%
19 Goodhue* 153 -- -- 55 220 44%
20 Freeborn 80 95 110 19% 16% 47 192 74%
21 Pine 84 116 217 38% 87% 51 190 -12%
22 Benton 36 98 176 172% 80% 41 176 0%
23 Steele 64 91 123 42% 35% 39 142 15%
24 Carlton 41 46 79 12% 72% 31 136 73%
25 Blue Earth 57 101 143 77% 42% 34 125 -13%
26 Mower 103 146 142 42% -3% 40 123 -13%
27 Kanabec 35 64 97 83% 52% 33 101 4%
28 McLeod 56 72 142 29% 97% 27 93 -35%
29 Itasca 77 64 73 -17% 14% 26 92 26%
30 Cass 33 78 91 136% 17% 27 90 -1%
31 Morrison 52 77 93 48% 21% 31 90 -3%
32 Beltrami 18 28 78 56% 179% 21 87 12%
33 Becker 25 29 50 16% 72% 19 84 69%
34 Douglas 44 40 78 -9% 95% 26 83 7%
35 Wabasha 28 38 47 36% 24% 24 78 67%
36 Kandiyohi 68 53 72 -22% 36% 22 76 5%
37 Dodge* 77 66 -- -14% 24 73 10%
38 Todd 36 48 68 33% 42% 22 70 3%
39 Winona* 39 58 -- 49% 24 70 21%
40 Sibley 25 42 54 68% 29% 18 68 26%
41 Aitkin 18 35 47 94% 34% 14 67 43%
42 Otter Tail 59 92 89 56% -3% 18 60 -33%
43 Clay 36 44 70 22% 59% 16 52 -26%
44 Renville* 47 -- -- 15 52 10%
05-06 06-07
Percent
1
2005 2006 2007 Change
45 Nicollet* 49 -- -- 11 51 4%
46 Brown 20 35 32 75% -9% 11 49 54%
47 Lyon 16 23 67 44% 191% 12 45 -32%
48 Meeker 86 94 114 9% 21% 13 43 -63%
49 Martin 26 44 54 69% 23% 15 42 -22%
50 Watonwan 12 26 20 117% -23% 10 41 104%
51 Lake 10 16 32 60% 100% 12 40 24%
52 Polk 22 26 30 18% 15% 7 36 20%
53 Wilkin 22 23 31 5% 35% 8 35 14%
54 Faribault 19 36 39 89% 8% 11 35 -10%
55 Swift 10 16 27 60% 69% 8 31 16%
56 Jackson 18 8 18 -56% 125% 8 31 74%
57 Hubbard* 35 63 -- 80% 7 29 -54%
58 Nobles* 18 -- -- 8 28 53%
59 Roseau 19 27 27 42% 0% 10 26 -4%
60 Waseca 23 44 20 91% -55% 10 24 18%
61 Fillmore 29 36 43 24% 19% 8 23 -47%
62 Mahnomen 6 5 3 -17% -40% 7 22 649%
63 Koochiching 19 22 17 16% -23% 7 22 28%
64 Chippewa* 15 -- -- 6 21 38%
65 Redwood 21 30 29 43% -3% 6 20 -31%
66 Clearwater 4 6 7 50% 17% 10 20 184%
67 Norman 7 14 14 100% 0% 5 17 24%
68 Rock 3 10 15 233% 50% 3 17 12%
69 Wadena 23 7 25 -70% 257% 4 16 -35%
70 Pope 9 13 19 44% 46% 3 15 -20%
71 Murray 10 13 10 30% -23% 6 13 35%
72 Lake of the Woods 2 3 9 50% 200% 3 12 30%
73 Pennington 12 7 11 -42% 57% 5 11 -2%
74 Yellow Medicine 20 18 12 -10% -33% 5 10 -13%
75 Cottonwood 11 24 19 118% -21% 3 10 -46%
76 Marshall* 9 -- -- 3 10 15%
77 Lincoln 3 8 4 167% -50% 2 7 85%
78 Houston 8 14 10 75% -29% 2 7 -27%
79 Lac qui Parle 12 11 11 -8% 0% 2 7 -35%
80 Stevens* 0 -- -- 2 7 --
81 Grant 10 21 14 110% -33% 2 6 -56%
82 Big Stone 7 6 7 -14% 17% 1 5 -34%
83 Traverse 3 9 3 200% -67% 2 4 39%
84 Pipestone 11 14 12 27% -14% 1 3 -79%
85 Cook 5 4 3 -20% -25% 1 2 -30%
86 Kittson 2 2 -- 0% 0 2 0%
87 Red Lake 4 1 1 -75% 0% 0 1 0%
1
2
3
4
Figure 8
Minnesota Foreclosure Rates* (2005)
by Total 2005 Households
Lake of the Wood

Kittson Roseau
19
2
Marshall
Koochiching
Pennington 19
12
Beltrami
Red Lake Cook
18
4 5
Polk
Clearwater
22 Lake
St. Louis
77 10
4
219
Itasca
Norman Mahnomen
7 6
Hubbard
Cass
Clay Becker 33
36 25
Wadena
Aitkin Carlton
Crow Wing
23
18 41
Wilkin Otter Tail
22 59
Todd
Pine
84
Foreclosure Rates
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Kanabec
Grant 36
Douglas 52
10
61
35
Traverse
44 0% - 0.25% (n = 24)
3
Benton
Stevens Pope 36
0.26% - 0.5% (n = 40)
Big Stone 9 Stearns Isanti
136 Chisago
7 Sherburne 80 108 0.51% - 0.76% (n = 7)
210
Swift Anoka Ramsey
Kandiyohi
10 520 0.77% - 1% (n = 3)
68 Wright
Meeker
Washington
Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 86 Hennepin 626 > 1% (n = 0)

12 1681
244
McLeod
56 Carver Do not maintain data (n = 13)
20 Scott Dakota
148 459
Sibley 0 25 50 100 Miles
25
Lincoln Lyon Redwood
3 Goodhue
Brown 39 79 Wabasha
20 28
Cottonwood Olmsted
11 23 64 158
12
Rock
3
Nobles Jackson
18
Martin
26
Faribault
19
Freeborn
80
Mower
103
Fillmore
29
8
Houston
«
* Foreclosure Rate = Number of Foreclosed Mortgages as a Percent of Households
Figure 9
Lake of the Wood

Kittson Roseau
2 27
3
Marshall
Koochiching
Pennington 22
7
Beltrami
Red Lake 28 Cook
1 4
Polk
Clearwater
26 Lake
St. Louis
Itasca 16
6
319
64
Norman Mahnomen
14 5
Hubbard
35 Cass
Clay Becker 78
44 29
Wadena
Aitkin Carlton
Crow Wing
7
35 46
Wilkin Otter Tail
23 92
Foreclosure Rates
Pine
Todd
Morrison 116 0% - 0.25% (n = 16)
Mille Lacs
Kanabec
Grant 48
Douglas 77
103
64
21
Traverse
40
0.26% - 0.5% (n = 33)
9
Benton
Stevens Pope 98 Isanti 0.51% - 0.75% (n = 17)
Big Stone 13 Stearns 196
219 Sherburne Chisago
6
341 172 0.76% - 1% (n = 5)
Swift
Anoka
Kandiyohi
16 Ramsey
Meeker Wright 849 >1% (n =7)
Washington
53
94
Lac Qui Parle Chippewa
Hennepin 1407
11 Do not maintain data (n = 9)
3042
414
McLeod
72 Carver
Yellow Medicine
18 Renville 119 0 25 50 100 Miles
Scott Dakota
Sibley 328 880
42
8 23 30 Nicollet Le Sueur Rice
35 38
Pipestone Murray
Cottonwood Blue Earth Waseca Steele Dodge Winona
14 13 Watonwan Olmsted
24 101 44 91 77 237 39
26
Rock
10
Nobles Jackson
8
Martin
44
Faribault
36
Freeborn
95
Mower
146
Fillmore
36
Houston
14
«
Figure 10
Lake of the Wood

Kittson Roseau
2 27
9
Marshall
9
Koochiching
Pennington 17
11
Beltrami
Red Lake Cook
1 78
3
Polk
Clearwater
30 Lake
St. Louis
32
7
359
Itasca
Norman Mahnomen 73
14 3
Hubbard
63 Cass
Clay Becker 91
70 50
Wadena
Aitkin
Crow Wing
Carlton Foreclosure Rates

25
47 79
231
89 Otter Tail
Wilkin
31 0% - 0.25% (n = 12)
Pine 0.26% - 0.50% (n = 29)
Todd
217
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Kanabec
Grant Douglas 68
93
229
97
14 0.51% - 0.75% (n = 16)

Traverse
78
3
Benton 0.76% - 1% (n = 11)

Stevens Pope 176 Isanti
Big Stone Stearns 322
19 Chisago
7 375 1.01 - 1.50% (n = 10)
Sherburne
673 307
Swift Anoka
27
Kandiyohi
1680 Ramsey 1.51 - 2% (n = 5)

Wright
Washington
Meeker
72
753
Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 114 Hennepin 2352 > 2% (n = 3)
11 15 5561
142
878
McLeod Carver Do not maintain data (n = 1)

12 47 Scott Dakota
Sibley 606 1610 0 25 50 100 Miles
54
Lincoln Lyon 174 Goodhue
Redwood
4 67 29 Nicollet Le Sueur Rice 153
32 47
Cottonwood Olmsted
19 20 20 123 66 342 58
Rock
15
Nobles
18
Jackson
18
Martin
54
Faribault
39
Freeborn
110
Mower
142
Fillmore
43
Houston
10
«
Figure 11
Minnesota Foreclosure Rates* (2008 Projected) ^
Lake of the Woods

Kittson Roseau
2 26
12
Marshall
10
Koochiching
Pennington 22
11
Beltrami
Red Lake 87 Cook
1 2
Polk
Clearwater
36 Lake
St Louis
20
40
Itasca 431
Norman Mahnomen 92
17 22
Hubbard Cass
29 90
Clay Becker
52 84

Crow Wing
Wilkin 16 67 136
359
35 Otter Tail
60
Foreclosure Rates
Pine 0% - 0.25% (n = 14)
Todd
190
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Kanabec
Grant 70
Douglas 90
275
101
4 6 83
0.26% - 0.50% (n = 24)
Traverse
Benton 0.51% - 0.75% (n = 16)
Stevens Pope 176
7 15 Stearns Isanti
Big Stone 463 Sherburne 404 Chisago 0.76% - 1% (n = 8)
5 559 249
Swift
Anoka 1.01% - 1.50% (n = 12)
Kandiyohi
31 Ramsey
Meeker Wright 2268
Washington
76
43 1190
Chippewa 1.51% - 2% (n = 8)
Lac Qui Parle Hennepin
21 3419
1393
7 93 8585
McLeod Carver > 2% (n = 5)
10 52 Scott Dakota
2637
Sibley 1241 0 25 50 100 Miles
68
Lincoln Lyon Redwood Le Sueur 229 Goodhue
7 45 20 Nicollet 272 Rice 220
Brown 51 Wabasha
49 78

3 13 Watonwan 125
10 41 24 142 73 347 70
Rock
17
Nobles
28
Jackson
31
Martin
42
Faribault
35
Freeborn
192
Mower
123
Fillmore
23
Houston
7
«
^Projected 2008 foreclosure rate is an estimate based on the number of sheriff's sales reported for Q1 2008.
Figure 12: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (sorted by County)
Foreclosure Rate^ = Number of Foreclosures as Percent of Total 2005 Households
Owner/Renter
By 2005 Households 1
Occupied (2000)
2008
2 % %
2005 2006 2007
(Projected) Owner Renter
TC Metro Averages 0.34 0.64 1.18 1.81 71 29
Greater MN Averages 0.35 0.51 0.79 0.89 78 22
Minnesota Averages 0.34 0.55 1.00 1.39 76 24
Aitkin 0.25 0.49 0.65 0.93 85 15

Anoka 0.44 0.72 1.43 1.93 83 17
Becker 0.19 0.23 0.39 0.66 80 20
Beltrami 0.11 0.18 0.50 0.55 75 26
Benton 0.24 0.65 1.17 1.17 67 33
Big Stone 0.31 0.26 0.31 0.20 85 15
Blue Earth 0.25 0.44 0.62 0.55 66 34
Brown 0.19 0.32 0.30 0.46 80 20
Carlton 0.31 0.35 0.60 1.03 82 18
Carver 0.27 0.39 0.94 1.29 84 16
Cass 0.28 0.66 0.77 0.76 86 14
Chippewa* -- -- 0.28 0.38 77 24
Chisago 0.62 0.99 1.77 1.43 87 13
Clay 0.18 0.22 0.35 0.26 72 28
Clearwater 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.58 82 18
Cook 0.2 0.16 0.12 0.08 78 22
Cottonwood 0.22 0.49 0.39 0.21 80 20
Crow Wing* -- -- 0.93 1.45 80 20
Dakota 0.31 0.60 1.10 1.80 78 22
Dodge* -- 1.06 0.91 1.00 84 16
Douglas 0.3 0.27 0.53 0.56 77 23
Faribault 0.29 0.55 0.60 0.54 81 19
Fillmore 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.26 81 19
Freeborn 0.59 0.71 0.82 1.43 79 21
Goodhue* -- -- 0.85 1.22 79 21
Grant 0.4 0.83 0.56 0.25 82 18
Hennepin 0.35 0.64 1.17 1.80 66 34
Houston 0.1 0.18 0.13 0.09 81 19
Hubbard* -- 0.45 0.80 0.37 83 17
Isanti 0.58 1.41 2.32 2.91 85 15
Itasca 0.42 0.35 0.40 0.50 83 17
Jackson 0.39 0.17 0.39 0.68 79 21
Kanabec 0.55 1.01 1.53 1.59 84 16
Kandiyohi 0.41 0.32 0.44 0.46 76 25
Kittson* -- 0.1 0.10 0.10 83 17
Koochiching 0.32 0.37 0.28 0.36 80 20
Lac qui Parle 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.22 81 19
Lake 0.21 0.33 0.67 0.83 85 15
Lake of the Woods 0.1 0.16 0.47 0.61 84 16
Le Sueur 0.36 0.65 1.61 2.51 83 17
Lincoln 0.12 0.31 0.15 0.29 80 20
Lyon 0.16 0.23 0.68 0.46 68 32
Mahnomen 0.3 0.25 0.15 1.12 77 23
Owner/Renter
Occupied (2000)
2008
2 % %
2005 2006 2007
Marshall* -- -- 0.22 0.25 84 16
Martin 0.29 0.49 0.60 0.46 77 23
McLeod 0.39 0.5 0.98 0.64 79 22
Meeker 0.95 1.04 1.26 0.47 82 19
Mille Lacs 0.6 1.02 2.27 2.73 80 20
Morrison 0.41 0.61 0.74 0.71 82 18
Mower 0.64 0.91 0.88 0.77 78 22
Murray 0.27 0.35 0.27 0.36 85 16
Nicollet* -- -- 0.42 0.44 76 24
Nobles* -- -- 0.23 0.35 75 25
Norman 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.59 81 19
Olmsted 0.29 0.44 0.64 0.64 76 24
Otter Tail 0.25 0.39 0.37 0.25 80 20
Pennington 0.21 0.12 0.19 0.19 75 25
Pine 0.77 1.06 1.98 1.74 84 16
Pipestone 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.06 78 23
Polk 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.29 74 26
Pope 0.19 0.28 0.41 0.32 81 19
Ramsey 0.30 0.68 1.14 1.66 64 36
Red Lake 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.06 79 21
Redwood 0.32 0.46 0.44 0.30 80 20
Renville* -- -- 0.69 0.75 81 19
Rice 0.37 0.7 1.12 1.09 78 22
Rock 0.08 0.26 0.39 0.43 78 22
Roseau 0.3 0.42 0.42 0.40 84 16
Scott 0.36 0.80 1.47 3.01 86 14
Sherburne 0.75 1.22 2.41 2.00 84 16
Sibley 0.42 0.71 0.91 1.15 81 19
St. Louis 0.26 0.38 0.43 0.52 74 26
Stearns 0.26 0.41 0.71 0.88 70 30
Steele 0.46 0.65 0.88 1.02 75 25
Stevens* -- -- 0.00 0.18 80 20
Swift 0.23 0.37 0.63 0.73 77 23
Todd 0.37 0.49 0.70 0.72 83 17
Traverse 0.18 0.55 0.18 0.26 81 20
Wabasha 0.32 0.43 0.54 0.89 83 18
Wadena 0.41 0.13 0.45 0.29 77 23
Waseca 0.32 0.61 0.28 0.33 80 20
Washington 0.30 0.51 1.08 1.71 86 14
Watonwan 0.26 0.57 0.44 0.89 77 23
Wilkin 0.81 0.85 1.14 1.30 81 19
Winona* -- 0.2 0.30 0.36 71 29
Wright* -- -- 1.89 2.99 84 16
Yellow Medicine 0.46 0.42 0.28 0.24 79 21
^ Foreclosure rate metric: The foreclosure rate used in this report identifies the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total 2005 households
(as reported by the Minnesota State Demographic Center’s Population Projections).
1
This column represents the proportion of housing units occupied by owners and renters in each county.
2
2008 Foreclosures (Projected) is an estimate based on the number of sheriff's sales reported for Q1 2008. Actual numbers will vary depending
on conditions of the remainder of the year.
Figure 13: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (sorted by 2007 foreclosure rate)
Owner/Renter
Occupied (2000)
2008
2 % %
2005 2006 2007
1 Sherburne 0.75 1.22 2.41 2.00 84 16

2 Isanti 0.58 1.41 2.32 2.91 85 15
3 Mille Lacs 0.6 1.02 2.27 2.73 80 20
4 Pine 0.77 1.06 1.98 1.74 84 16
5 Wright* -- -- 1.89 2.99 84 16
6 Chisago 0.62 0.99 1.77 1.43 87 13
7 Le Sueur 0.36 0.65 1.61 2.51 83 17
8 Kanabec 0.55 1.01 1.53 1.59 84 16
9 Scott 0.36 0.8 1.47 3.01 86 14
10 Anoka 0.44 0.72 1.43 1.93 83 17
11 Meeker 0.95 1.04 1.26 0.47 82 19
12 Benton 0.24 0.65 1.17 1.17 67 33
13 Hennepin 0.35 0.64 1.17 1.80 66 34
14 Ramsey 0.3 0.68 1.14 1.66 64 36
15 Wilkin 0.81 0.85 1.14 1.30 81 19
16 Rice 0.37 0.7 1.12 1.09 78 22
17 Dakota 0.31 0.6 1.10 1.80 78 22
18 Washington 0.3 0.51 1.08 1.71 86 14
19 McLeod 0.39 0.50 0.98 0.64 79 22
20 Carver 0.27 0.39 0.94 1.29 84 16
21 Crow Wing* -- -- 0.93 1.45 80 20
22 Sibley 0.42 0.71 0.91 1.15 81 19
23 Dodge* -- 1.06 0.91 1.00 84 16
24 Mower 0.64 0.91 0.88 0.77 78 22
25 Steele 0.46 0.65 0.88 1.02 75 25
26 Goodhue -- -- 0.85 1.22 79 21
27 Freeborn 0.59 0.71 0.82 1.43 79 21
28 Hubbard* -- 0.45 0.80 0.37 83 17
29 Cass 0.28 0.66 0.77 0.76 86 14
30 Morrison 0.41 0.61 0.74 0.71 82 18
31 Stearns 0.26 0.41 0.71 0.88 70 30
32 Todd 0.37 0.49 0.70 0.72 83 17
33 Renville* -- -- 0.69 0.75 81 19
34 Lyon 0.16 0.23 0.68 0.46 68 32
35 Lake 0.21 0.33 0.67 0.83 85 15
36 Aitkin 0.25 0.49 0.65 0.93 85 15
37 Olmsted 0.29 0.44 0.64 0.64 76 24
38 Swift 0.23 0.37 0.63 0.73 77 23
39 Blue Earth 0.25 0.44 0.62 0.55 66 34
40 Martin 0.29 0.49 0.60 0.46 77 23
41 Carlton 0.31 0.35 0.60 1.03 82 18
42 Faribault 0.29 0.55 0.60 0.54 81 19
43 Grant 0.4 0.83 0.56 0.25 82 18
Owner/Renter
Occupied (2000)
2008
2 % %
2005 2006 2007
44 Wabasha 0.32 0.43 0.54 0.89 83 18
45 Douglas 0.3 0.27 0.53 0.56 77 23
46 Fillmore 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.26 81 19
47 Beltrami 0.11 0.18 0.50 0.55 75 26
48 Norman 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.59 81 19
49 Lake of the Woods 0.1 0.16 0.47 0.61 84 16
50 Wadena 0.41 0.13 0.45 0.29 77 23
51 Redwood 0.32 0.46 0.44 0.30 80 20
52 Kandiyohi 0.41 0.32 0.44 0.46 76 25
53 Watonwan 0.26 0.57 0.44 0.89 77 23
54 St. Louis 0.26 0.38 0.43 0.52 74 26
55 Nicollet* -- -- 0.42 0.44 76 24
56 Roseau 0.3 0.42 0.42 0.40 84 16
57 Pope 0.19 0.28 0.41 0.32 81 19
58 Itasca 0.42 0.35 0.40 0.50 83 17
59 Jackson 0.39 0.17 0.39 0.68 79 21
60 Becker 0.19 0.23 0.39 0.66 80 20
61 Cottonwood 0.22 0.49 0.39 0.21 80 20
62 Rock 0.08 0.26 0.39 0.43 78 22
63 Otter Tail 0.25 0.39 0.37 0.25 80 20
64 Clay 0.18 0.22 0.35 0.26 72 28
65 Lac qui Parle 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.22 81 19
66 Big Stone 0.31 0.26 0.31 0.20 85 15
67 Winona* -- 0.2 0.30 0.36 71 29
68 Pipestone 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.06 78 23
69 Brown 0.19 0.32 0.30 0.46 80 20
70 Koochiching 0.32 0.37 0.28 0.36 80 20
71 Chippewa* -- -- 0.28 0.38 77 24
72 Yellow Medicine 0.46 0.42 0.28 0.24 79 21
73 Waseca 0.32 0.61 0.28 0.33 80 20
74 Murray 0.27 0.35 0.27 0.36 85 16
75 Polk 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.29 74 26
76 Nobles* -- -- 0.23 0.35 75 25
77 Marshall* -- -- 0.22 0.25 84 16
78 Clearwater 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.58 82 18
79 Pennington 0.21 0.12 0.19 0.19 75 25
80 Traverse 0.18 0.55 0.18 0.26 81 20
81 Lincoln 0.12 0.31 0.15 0.29 80 20
82 Mahnomen 0.30 0.25 0.15 1.12 77 23
83 Houston 0.1 0.18 0.13 0.09 81 19
84 Cook 0.2 0.16 0.12 0.08 78 22
85 Kittson* -- 0.1 0.10 0.10 83 17
86 Red Lake 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.06 79 21
87 Stevens* -- -- 0.00 0.18 80 20
1
2
Figure 14: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates (sorted by 2008 projected foreclosure rate)
Owner/Renter
Occupied (2000)
2008
2 % %
2005 2006 2007
1 Scott 0.36 0.8 1.47 3.01 86 14

2 Wright* -- -- 1.89 2.99 84 16
3 Isanti 0.58 1.41 2.32 2.91 85 15
4 Mille Lacs 0.6 1.02 2.27 2.73 80 20
5 Le Sueur 0.36 0.65 1.61 2.51 83 17
6 Sherburne 0.75 1.22 2.41 2.00 84 16
7 Anoka 0.44 0.72 1.43 1.93 83 17
8 Hennepin 0.35 0.64 1.17 1.80 66 34
9 Dakota 0.31 0.6 1.10 1.80 78 22
10 Pine 0.77 1.06 1.98 1.74 84 16
11 Washington 0.3 0.51 1.08 1.71 86 14
12 Ramsey 0.3 0.68 1.14 1.66 64 36
13 Kanabec 0.55 1.01 1.53 1.59 84 16
14 Crow Wing* -- -- 0.93 1.45 80 20
15 Chisago 0.62 0.99 1.77 1.43 87 13
16 Freeborn 0.59 0.71 0.82 1.43 79 21
17 Wilkin 0.81 0.85 1.14 1.30 81 19
18 Carver 0.27 0.39 0.94 1.29 84 16
19 Goodhue* -- -- 0.85 1.22 79 21
20 Benton 0.24 0.65 1.17 1.17 67 33
21 Sibley 0.42 0.71 0.91 1.15 81 19
22 Mahnomen 0.3 0.25 0.15 1.12 77 23
23 Rice 0.37 0.7 1.12 1.09 78 22
24 Carlton 0.31 0.35 0.60 1.03 82 18
25 Steele 0.46 0.65 0.88 1.02 75 25
26 Dodge* -- 1.06 0.91 1.00 84 16
27 Aitkin 0.25 0.49 0.65 0.93 85 15
28 Wabasha 0.32 0.43 0.54 0.89 83 18
29 Watonwan 0.26 0.57 0.44 0.89 77 23
30 Stearns 0.26 0.41 0.71 0.88 70 30
31 Lake 0.21 0.33 0.67 0.83 85 15
32 Mower 0.64 0.91 0.88 0.77 78 22
33 Cass 0.28 0.66 0.77 0.76 86 14
34 Renville* -- -- 0.69 0.75 81 19
35 Swift 0.23 0.37 0.63 0.73 77 23
36 Todd 0.37 0.49 0.70 0.72 83 17
37 Morrison 0.41 0.61 0.74 0.71 82 18
38 Jackson 0.39 0.17 0.39 0.68 79 21
39 Becker 0.19 0.23 0.39 0.66 80 20
40 Olmsted 0.29 0.44 0.64 0.64 76 24
41 McLeod 0.39 0.5 0.98 0.64 79 22
42 Lake of the Woods 0.1 0.16 0.47 0.61 84 16
43 Norman 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.59 81 19
Owner/Renter
Occupied (2000)
2008
2 % %
2005 2006 2007
44 Clearwater 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.58 82 18
45 Douglas 0.3 0.27 0.53 0.56 77 23
46 Beltrami 0.11 0.18 0.50 0.55 75 26
47 Blue Earth 0.25 0.44 0.62 0.55 66 34
48 Faribault 0.29 0.55 0.60 0.54 81 19
49 St. Louis 0.26 0.38 0.43 0.52 74 26
50 Itasca 0.42 0.35 0.40 0.50 83 17
51 Meeker 0.95 1.04 1.26 0.47 82 19
52 Martin 0.29 0.49 0.60 0.46 77 23
53 Lyon 0.16 0.23 0.68 0.46 68 32
54 Kandiyohi 0.41 0.32 0.44 0.46 76 25
55 Brown 0.19 0.32 0.30 0.46 80 20
56 Nicollet* -- -- 0.42 0.44 76 24
57 Rock 0.08 0.26 0.39 0.43 78 22
58 Roseau 0.3 0.42 0.42 0.40 84 16
59 Chippewa* -- -- 0.28 0.38 77 24
60 Hubbard* -- 0.45 0.80 0.37 83 17
61 Winona* -- 0.2 0.30 0.36 71 29
62 Koochiching 0.32 0.37 0.28 0.36 80 20
63 Murray 0.27 0.35 0.27 0.36 85 16
64 Nobles* -- -- 0.23 0.35 75 25
65 Waseca 0.32 0.61 0.28 0.33 80 20
66 Pope 0.19 0.28 0.41 0.32 81 19
67 Redwood 0.32 0.46 0.44 0.30 80 20
68 Wadena 0.41 0.13 0.45 0.29 77 23
69 Polk 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.29 74 26
70 Lincoln 0.12 0.31 0.15 0.29 80 20
71 Fillmore 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.26 81 19
72 Traverse 0.18 0.55 0.18 0.26 81 20
73 Clay 0.18 0.22 0.35 0.26 72 28
74 Otter Tail 0.25 0.39 0.37 0.25 80 20
75 Marshall* -- -- 0.22 0.25 84 16
76 Grant 0.4 0.83 0.56 0.25 82 18
77 Yellow Medicine 0.46 0.42 0.28 0.24 79 21
78 Lac qui Parle 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.22 81 19
79 Cottonwood 0.22 0.49 0.39 0.21 80 20
80 Big Stone 0.31 0.26 0.31 0.20 85 15
81 Pennington 0.21 0.12 0.19 0.19 75 25
82 Stevens* -- -- 0.00 0.18 80 20
83 Kittson* -- 0.1 0.10 0.10 83 17
84 Houston 0.1 0.18 0.13 0.09 81 19
85 Cook 0.2 0.16 0.12 0.08 78 22
86 Pipestone 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.06 78 23
87 Red Lake 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.06 79 21
1
2
Figures 15 & 16: Top 20 Counties Impacted by Foreclosure in 2007
by total number of foreclosures and by foreclosure rate^
Figure 15: Top 20 Counties by Number of Foreclosures Figure 16: Top 20 Counties by Foreclosure Rate
Rank in Rank in 2007
2007
Rank Figure County Rank Figure County Foreclosure
Foreclosures
16 15 Rate
1 13 Hennepin 5,561 1 7 Sherburne 2.41

2 14 Ramsey 2,352 2 12 Isanti 2.32
3 10 Anoka 1,680 3 17 Mille Lacs 2.27
4 17 Dakota 1,610 4 18 Pine 1.98
5 18 Washington 878 5 6 Wright 1.89
6 5 Wright 753 6 13 Chisago 1.77
7 1 Sherburne 673 7 20 Le Sueur 1.61
8 9 Scott 606 8 -- Kanabec 1.53
9 -- Stearns 375 9 8 Scott 1.47
10 -- St. Louis 359 10 3 Anoka 1.43
11 -- Olmsted 342 11 -- Meeker 1.26
12 2 Isanti 322 12 19 Benton 1.17
13 6 Chisago 307 13 1 Hennepin 1.17
14 20 Carver 287 14 2 Ramsey 1.14
15 16 Rice 237 15 -- Wilkin 1.14
16 -- Crow Wing 231 16 15 Rice 1.12
17 3 Mille Lacs 229 17 4 Dakota 1.10
18 4 Pine 217 18 5 Washington 1.08
19 12 Benton 176 19 -- McLeod 0.98
20 7 Le Sueur 174 20 14 Carver 0.94
Figures 17 & 18: Top 20 Counties Impacted by Foreclosure in 2008 (Projected)*
by total number of foreclosures and by foreclosure rate^
Figure 17: Top 20 Counties by Number of Foreclosures Figure 18: Top 20 Counties by Foreclosure Rate
2008
Rank in 2008 Rank in
Foreclosure
Rank Figure County Foreclosures Rank Figure County
Rate
18 (Projected) 17
(Projected)
1 8 Hennepin 8,585 1 6 Scott 3.01

2 12 Ramsey 3,419 2 7 Wright 2.99
3 9 Dakota 2,637 3 11 Isanti 2.91
4 7 Anoka 2,268 4 15 Mille Lacs 2.73
5 11 Washington 1,393 5 16 Le Sueur 2.51
6 1 Scott 1,241 6 8 Sherburne 2.00
7 2 Wright 1,190 7 4 Anoka 1.93
8 6 Sherburne 559 8 1 Hennepin 1.80
9 -- Stearns 463 9 3 Dakota 1.80
10 -- St. Louis 431 10 -- Pine 1.74
11 3 Isanti 404 11 5 Washington 1.71
12 18 Carver 393 12 2 Ramsey 1.66
13 14 Crow Wing 359 13 -- Kanabec 1.59
14 -- Olmsted 347 14 13 Crow Wing 1.45
15 4 Mille Lacs 275 15 17 Chisago 1.43
16 5 Le Sueur 272 16 20 Freeborn 1.43
17 15 Chisago 249 17 -- Wilkin 1.30
18 -- Rice 229 18 12 Carver 1.29
19 19 Goodhue 220 19 19 Goodhue 1.22
20 16 Freeborn 192 20 -- Benton 1.17
* 2008 Foreclosures (Projected) is an estimate based on the number of sheriff's sales reported for Q1 2008. Actual numbers will vary depending
Figure 19: Minnesota Foreclosures in 2005 to 2008 (Projected)
Foreclosures in Minnesota by Region

2005 - 2008 (Projected)
30,000
25,000
# of foreclosures
20,000
Minnesota
15,000 Twin Cities metro
Greater MN
10,000
5,000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008
(Projected)*
Year
Figure 20: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates in 2005 to 2008 (Projected)
Minnesota Foreclosure Rate by Region

2005 - 2008 (Projected)
2
1.8
1.6
Rate of foreclosure
1.4
1.2 Minnesota
1 Twin Cities Metro
0.8 Greater MN
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2005 2006 2007 2008
(Projected)*
Year
Figure 21: Summary of Minnesota Foreclosures by Year
Number of Counties
Foreclosures
2008
2005 2006 2007 (Projected)*
0 - 50 48 47 42 42
51 - 100 14 13 17 18
101 - 250 8 10 13 11
251 - 500 1 4 6 8
501 - 1,000 2 2 4 1
1,001 - 2,500 1 2 3 4
> 2,500 0 0 1 3
Data Unavailable 13 9 1 0
* 2008 Foreclosure (Projected) is an estimate based on the number of sheriff's sales reported for Q1 2008. Actual numbers will vary depending
Figure 22: Summary of Minnesota Foreclosure Rates by Year

Number of Counties
Foreclosure Rate^
2008
2005 2006 2007 (Projected)*
0% - 0.25% 24 16 12 14
0.26% - 0.5% 40 33 29 24
0.51% - 0.75% 7 17 16 16
0.76% - 1.0% 3 5 11 8
1.01% - 1.5% 0 7 10 12
1.51% - 2.0% 0 0 5 8
> 2% 0 0 3 5
Data Unavailable 13 9 1 0

MN Foreclosure Report 042808

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

MN Foreclosure Report 042808

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Foreclosures in Minnesota:

A Report Based on County Sheriff’s Sale Data

April 29, 2008

About Family Housing Fund

About the Minnesota Home Ownership Center

About Minnesota Housing

All rights reserved.

Study Purpose and Objectives............................................................................................ 1

Key updated foreclosure data included in this report are as follows:

Foreclosures in Minnesota by Region

4. Nationally reported foreclosure figures continue to significantly under-report the situation in

Overview of foreclosure process

There are two types of foreclosure processes in Minnesota:

Sheriff’s Sale Records

• Region 1: The Twin Cities seven-county metro area 10

Foreclosure Rate Metric

[Number of sheriff’s sales] / [for every 100 households]

Four maps showing total number of foreclosures by

Three tables detailing the number of foreclosures.

Four maps showing foreclosure rates by county for

Three tables detailing foreclosure rates. The first is

Four tables detailing the top 20 impacted counties

Two line graphs representing foreclosure trends for

One table detailing the number of counties in each

One table detailing the number of counties in each

Lake of the Wood

Benton 101 - 250 (n = 8)

Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 86 Hennepin 626

Lake of the Wood

Ramsey 501 - 1,000 (n = 2)

Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 94 Hennepin 1407 > 1,000 (n = 2)

Lake of the Woods

Wadena Aitkin Carlton

Pipestone Murray Blue Earth Waseca Steele Dodge

Lake of the Woods

Wadena Aitkin Carlton

Wilkin Otter Tail Total Foreclosures

Douglas 90 51 - 150 (n = 18)

Pipestone Murray Blue Earth Waseca Steele Dodge 70

Aitkin 18 35 47 94% 34% 14 67 43%

1 Hennepin 1,681 3,042 5,561 81% 83% 1,823 8,585 54%

1 Hennepin 1,681 3,042 5,561 81% 83% 1,823 8,585 54%

Lake of the Wood

Lac Qui Parle Chippewa 86 Hennepin 626 > 1% (n = 0)

Lake of the Wood

Lake of the Wood

Carlton Foreclosure Rates

14 0.51% - 0.75% (n = 16)

Benton 0.76% - 1% (n = 11)

1680 Ramsey 1.51 - 2% (n = 5)

McLeod Carver Do not maintain data (n = 1)

Lake of the Woods

Wadena Aitkin Carlton

Pipestone Murray Blue Earth Waseca Steele Dodge

Aitkin 0.25 0.49 0.65 0.93 85 15

1 Sherburne 0.75 1.22 2.41 2.00 84 16

1 Scott 0.36 0.8 1.47 3.01 86 14

1 13 Hennepin 5,561 1 7 Sherburne 2.41

1 8 Hennepin 8,585 1 6 Scott 3.01

Foreclosures in Minnesota by Region

Figure 20: Minnesota Foreclosure Rates in 2005 to 2008 (Projected)

Minnesota Foreclosure Rate by Region

Figure 22: Summary of Minnesota Foreclosure Rates by Year