Tag Archives: Freyermuth

Installment Land Contracts:  Uses, Abuses, and Legislative Proposals

Posted on by

Professor Durham

Professor Freyermuth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professors’ Corner

A FREE monthly webinar featuring a panel of law professors,

addressing topics of interest to practitioners of real estate and trusts/estates

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

12:30 p.m. Eastern/11:30 a.m. Central/9:30 a.m. Pacific 

Installment Land Contracts:  Uses, Abuses, and Legislative Proposals 

Speakers:

  • Professor Jim Durham, University of Dayton
  • Professor Wilson Freyermuth, University of Missouri

Moderator:

  • Professor Chris Odinet, Southern University Law Center and Visiting Professor, University of Iowa

In the wake of the mortgage crisis, several jurisdictions have seen a resurgence in the use of the installment land contract as a financing device. Use of the installment contract creates a number of risks, particularly in jurisdictions where existing precedent and/or statutory provisions do not clearly articulate the appropriate procedures for the vendor’s enforcement of contract following the vendee’s default. Some investors have sought to capitalize on this lack of clarity, effectively using installment contracts as the equivalent of “rent-to-own” contracts that provide for landlord-like default remedies while disclaiming any responsibility for the habitability of the property.

Professors Durham and Freyermuth will discuss the existing legal background governing the characterization and enforcement of installment land contracts and the wide variety of approaches taken by various states. They will also discuss the provisions and the merits of recent legislative proposals designed to regulate some of the more abusive uses of the installment land contract device.

Register for this FREE webinar program at https://ambar.org/ProfessorsCorner.

Sponsored by the ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section Legal Education and Uniform Laws Group

 

Equitable Subrogation in Mortgage Refinancing

Posted on by
Freyermuth-Wilson1

Professor Freyermuth

I am speaking on Equitable Subrogation in Mortgage Refinancing and Land Purchase Transactions in an ABA Professor’s Corner webinar on Wednesday with Professor Wilson Freyermuth of the University of Missouri School of Law. If this sounds like an esoteric topic, it is!

Subrogation refers to the substitution of one party for another and equitable subrogation refers to the doctrine where a court may use its equitable powers to find an implied assignment of a mortgage in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of a party. Since the commencement of the foreclosure crisis, this doctrine has been put to the test. Wilson and I will take a look at some of the recent cases that do the testing. More info about the webinar is below:

Professors’ Corner

A FREE monthly webinar featuring a panel of law professors, addressing topics of interest to practitioners of real estate and trusts/estates. All are welcome and encouraged to register and participate.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

12:30 p.m. Eastern/11:30 a.m. Central/9:30 a.m. Pacific

Equitable Subrogation in Mortgage Refinancing and Land Purchase Transactions

Speakers:  

David Reiss, Brooklyn Law School

Wilson Freyermuth, University of Missouri School of Law

When a lender makes a mortgage loan to refinance an existing first mortgage, the lender typically expects its refinancing loan to have first priority.  If there is an intervening lien on the mortgaged property, however, a priority dispute may result in which the intervening lienholder argues that the recording statutes give it priority over the refinancing lender’s mortgage lien.

In this situation, the principle of equitable subrogation may apply to allow the refinancing lender to be subrogated to the priority of the paid-off mortgage so as to obtain priority over the intervening lien.  The Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages (1997) embraced the liberal application of equitable subrogation in this context.  While many courts have embraced the Restatement approach, not all courts have embraced the Restatement approach (including a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision rejecting the application of equitable subrogation in the refinancing context).

Our speakers will discuss a series of recent decisions (all decided in the 2015 calendar year) addressing the extent to which equitable subrogation is (or should be) available in the mortgage refinancing and land purchase context.

Register for this FREE webinar at https://ambar.org/ProfessorsCorner.

Sponsored by the ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section, Legal Education and Uniform Laws Group.

Arizona’s “Unholy” Foreclosure Mess

Posted on by

Professor Dale Whitman posted a commentary about Steinberger v. McVey ex rel. County of Maricopa, 2014 WL 333575 (Ariz. Court of Appeals, Jan. 30, 2014) on the Dirt listserv:

A defaulting borrower may defend against foreclosure on ground that the chain of assignments of the deed of trust is defective, and also on a variety of other theories.

The residential mortgage loan in this case was originally made in 2005 to Steinberger’s 87-year-old father, who died two years later, leaving her the property. By 2008, she was having difficulty making the payments, and asked IndyMac FSB to consider a loan modification. She was advised that she must first default, and she did so. There followed a period of more than two years during which she was “jerked around” by IndyMac, with successive promises to consider a loan modification, the setting of (and then vacating of) foreclosure dates, and assertions by IndyMac that she had not properly submitted all of the paperwork required for a modification.

In November 2010 she filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that IndyMac had no authority to foreclose on the house, and upon filing a $7,000 bond, she obtained a TRO against foreclosure. The following summarizes the theories on which she obtained a favorable result.

1. Lack of a proper chain of title to the deed of trust. The Court of Appeals seems to have assumed that no foreclosure would be permissible without the foreclosing party having a chain of assignments from the originator of the loan. If one accepts this assumption, IndyMac was in trouble. The first assignment, made in 2009, was from MERS, acting as nominee of IndyMac Bank, to IndyMac Federal FSB, but it was made before IndyMac Federal FSB even existed!

A second assignment was made in 2010 by IndyMac Federal FSB to DBNTC, the trustee of a securitized trust. But Steinberger alleged that by this date, IndyMac Federal FSB no longer existed, so this assignment was void as well. She also made the familiar allegation that this assignment was too late to comply with the 90-day transfer period required by the trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement, but the court did not pursue this theory.

The court’s opinion is significant for its treatment of Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Sav. Bank, the 2012 case in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that “Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary [of a deed of trust] to prove its authority.² The Court of Appeals, in Steinberger, read this statement to mean that the beneficiary need not prove its authority unless the borrower alleges a lack of authority in her complaint. There was no such allegation in Hogan, but there was in Steinberger. Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded that Steinberger could contest IndyMac’s right to foreclose. And it felt that Steinberger’s allegations about the defects in the chain of title to the deed of trust, if proven, could constitute a successful attack on IndyMac’s authority to foreclose.

It’s important to realize what the Court of Appeals did not do. It did not disagree with Hogan’s holding that the beneficiary need not show possession of the promissory note in order to foreclose. Several commentators (including me) have criticized Hogan for this holding, but the Steinberger opinion leaves it intact. Indeed, in Steinberger, the borrower raised no issue as to whether IndyMac had the note, and seems to have conceded that it did. The discussion focuses on the legitimacy of the chain of title to the deed of trust, not on possession of the note.

Is the court correct that a valid chain of title to the deed of trust is necessary to foreclose under Arizona law? As a general proposition, one would think not. Arizona not only has adopted the common law rule that the mortgage follows the note, but even has a statute saying so: Ariz. Rev. Stat.§ 33 817:  “The transfer of any contract or contracts secured by a trust deed shall operate as a transfer of the security for such contract or contracts.” So if the note is transferred, no separate assignment of the deed of trust would be needed at all. And a recent unreported Court of Appeals case, Varbel v. Bank of America Nat. Ass’n, 2013 WL 817290 (Ariz. App. 2013), quotes the Bankruptcy Court as reaching the same conclusion: In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 22 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010) (“Arizona’s deed of trust statute does not require a beneficiary of a deed of trust to produce the underlying note (or its chain of assignment) in order to conduct a Trustee’s Sale.”).

By the way, that’s the rule with respect to mortgages in virtually every state. A chain of assignments, recorded or not, is completely unnecessary to proof of the right to foreclose. The power to foreclose comes from having the right to enforce the note, not from having a chain of assignments of the mortgage or deed of trust.

However, since Hogan has told us that no showing of holding the note is necessary in order to foreclose, what is necessary? It defies common sense to suppose that a party can foreclose a deed of trust in Arizona without at least alleging some connection to the original loan documents. If that allegation is not that one holds the note, perhaps it must be the allegation that one has a chain of assignments of the deed of trust. If this is true, then the opinion in Steinberger, written on the assumption that the assignments must be valid ones, makes sense.

The ultimate problem here is the weakness of the foreclosure statute itself. Ariz. Stat. 33-807 provides, “The beneficiary or trustee shall constitute the proper and complete party plaintiff in any action to foreclose a deed of trust.” Fine, but when the loan has been sold on the secondary market, who is the “beneficiary?” The statute simply doesn’t say. The normal answer would be the party to whom the right to enforce the note has been transferred, but Hogan seems to have deprived us of that answer. An alternative answer (though one that forces us to disregard the theory that the mortgage follows the note) is to say that the “beneficiary” is now the party to whom the deed of trust has been assigned. But the Arizona courts don’t seem to be willing to come out and say that forthrightly, either. Instead, as in the Steinberger opinion, it’s an unstated assumption.

As Wilson Freyermuth put it, after graciously reading an earlier version of this comment, “The Steinberger court couldn’t accept the fact that a lender could literally foreclose with no connection to the loan documents — so if Hogan says the note is irrelevant, well then it has to be the deed of trust (which would presumably then require proof of a chain of assignments).  It’s totally backwards — right through the looking glass.  And totally inconsistent with Ariz. Stat. 33-817.”

To say that this is an unsatisfactory situation is an understatement; it’s an unholy mess. The statute was written with no recognition that any such thing as the secondary mortgage market exists, and the Arizona courts have utterly failed to reinterpret the statute in a way that makes sense. It’s sad, indeed.

There are a number of other theories in the Steinberger opinion on which the borrower prevailed. Some of these are quite striking, and should give a good deal of comfort to foreclosure defense counsel. In quick summary form, they are:

2. The tort of negligent performance of an undertaking (the “Good Samaritan” tort). This applies, apparently, to IndyMac’s incompetent and vacillating administration of its loan modification program.

3. Negligence per se, in IndyMac’s recording of defective assignments of the deed of trust in violation of the Arizona statute criminalizing the recording of a false or forged legal instrument.

4. Breach of contract, in IndyMac’s failure to follow the procedures set out in the deed of trust in pursuing its foreclosure.

5. Procedural unconscionability, in IndyMac’s making the original loan to her elderly father without explaining its unusual and onerous terms, particularly in light of his failing mental health.

6. Substantive unconscionability, based on the terms of the loan itself. It was an ARM with an initial interest rate of 1%, but which could be (and apparently was) adjusted upward in each succeeding month. This resulted in an initial period of negative amortization, and once the amortization cap was reached, a large and rapid increase in monthly payments. At the same time, some of Steinberger’s other theories were rejected, including an argument that, because IndyMac had intentionally destroyed the note, it had cancelled the debt. The court concluded that, in the absence of proof of intent to cancel the debt, it remained collectible.

 

 

Laches Upends Priority of Mortgagee in Utah

Posted on by

Professor Wilson Freyermuth posted this summary of the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion, Insight Assets, Inc. v. Farias, ___ P.3d ___, 2013 WL 3990783 (August 6, 2013), to the DIRT listserv:

Synposis:   Although vendor purchase money mortgagee may generally have a superior claim to priority over a third-party purchase money mortgagee under the Restatement, vendor purchase money mortgagee was barred from asserting that priority by the doctrine of laches.

Facts:  In 2004, the Phalens sold land in Ogden, Utah to the Boecks for $88,000.  The Boecks financed the purchase with a $70,300 institutional mortgage loan from First Franklin Financial Corp. (First Franklin) and $17,600 in seller purchase money mortgage financing from the Phalens.  At closing, the Boecks executed deeds of trust to First Franklin and the Phelans.  After closing, the title company recorded the two deeds of trust together, but with First Franklin’s deed of trust being recorded first.  First Franklin later assigned its mortgage to Wells Fargo.

After closing, the Boecks defaulted to both Bank and to Sellers.  In June 2005, Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property and acquired the property by a trustee’s deed.  The Phelans did not attempt to foreclose on the property.  Wells Fargo sold the property, which ultimately passed by intervening conveyances to Farias.

In 2009, the Phelans assigned their interest under their deed of trust to Insight Assets (“Insight”), who executed a substitution of trustee, recorded a notice of default, and instituted foreclosure proceedings.  Farias sought summary judgment, claiming that he had held free and clear title as a bona fide purchaser.  The district court entered judgment for Farias, and Insight appealed.

On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, Insight argued that as a matter of law, the Phelans’ seller deed of trust was entitled to priority over First Franklin’s deed of trust under Restatement (Third) of Property — Mortgages § 7.2(c) (“A purchase money mortgage given to a vendor of real estate, in the absence of a contrary intent of the parties to it and subject to the operation of the recording acts, has priority over a purchase money mortgage on that real estate given to a person who is not its vendor.”).  By contrast, Farias made three arguments:  (1) that First Franklin did not know of the Phelans’ seller purchase money mortgage and thus the Restatement rule should not apply; (2) that even if First Franklin did know of the seller purchase money mortgage, that knowledge was irrelevant because Farias was a bona fide purchaser who took free and clear of the mortgage; and (3) that Insight’s claims was otherwise barred by the doctrine of laches.

Analysis:  The Supreme Court of Utah rejected Farias’s bona fide purchase argument, noting (correctly and obviously) that the recording act cannot protect Farias against a prior properly-recorded mortgage.  The Court also noted that while the Restatement rule generally gives a vendor purchase money mortgage priority over a third-party purchase money mortgage, that rule was subject to a caveat — “where only one of the parties has notice of the other,” the recording acts should govern and award priority to the party lacking notice.

Insight argued that its vendor purchase money mortgage should still prevail, because (a) First Franklin had actual knowledge of the Phelans’ seller purchase money mortgage and (b) the title company’s knowledge of the Phelans’ seller purchase money mortgage was imputed to First Franklin.  The court did not reach this argument, however, concluding that Insight’s priority claim was barred under the equitable doctrine of laches. Although Insight did file its notice of default within the applicable six-year statute of limitations, the court stated that this did not preclude the possible application of laches.  The court concluded that application of laches was appropriate due to the Phelans’ lack of diligence and Farias’s resulting injury.  The court noted that during the five years between the Boecks’ default and the Phelans’ assignment to Insight, the Phelans “took no action to clarify or assert their rights to the property.” The court held that this was inaction unreasonable because the Restatement rule involves a “multi-factor balancing test under which priority is determined by ‘the circumstances of the given case, the equities, and the effect of the recording act.’” Thus, in the court’s view, the Phelans “could not have rationally assumed that their interest had priority” without having brought an action to establish that priority.  By failing to bring such a claim during the Wells Fargo foreclosure proceedings, the Phelans “risked forfeiting their security interest entirely.”

The court also concluded that Farias would be injured if Insight’s untimely claim was allowed to proceed, noting that Farias had negotiated the price for his home without considering the $17,600 debt owed to Insight and that when Farias purchased the home years after the Phelans’ default, “it was reasonable for him to infer from [their] inaction that their security interest had been extinguished” by the Wells Fargo foreclosure.  The court also noted that the passage of time had harmed Farias by making it difficult to gather evidence in his defense, as First Franklin was now out of business (making it difficult for Farias to locate records or former employees who might have information relevant to the question of First Franklin’s knowledge).

Comment:  This is the second 2013 periodic development involving a case where the title company recorded a third-party purchase money mortgage prior to a vendor purchase money mortgage.  In the earlier case, Insight LLC v. Gunter, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected the Restatement rule and held that the third-party mortgage had priority under the recording act.  As noted in the critique of Gunter, https://dirt.umkc.edu/February%202013/InsightLLCvGunter.pdf, that decision wrongly opened the door for purchase money lenders to structure closings in a fashion likely to disadvantage the unsuspecting purchase money seller, particularly where the purchase money lender knew of the purchase money seller and could have easily required a subordination agreement as a condition of making the purchase money loan.  Gratifyingly, the Utah court rejected the reasoning of Gunter, noting that the Restatement rule is the appropriate starting principle for vendor vs. third party lender purchase money priority disputes.

The Utah court’s judgment regarding the application of laches is harder to evaluate without the ability to review the factual record in greater detail.  On the one hand, the court is correct to note that because the Restatement rule is subject to the application of the recording act if the third party mortgagee lacks notice of the vendor mortgagee (or vice-versa), then the Phelans couldn’t be certain of their priority over First Franklin without a court decree.  On the other hand, Farias’s actions also seem similarly unreasonable.  Because the Phelans’ mortgage was recorded (and could have been entitled to priority over the First Franklin mortgage), Farias also couldn’t have been certain he was getting clear title without a court decree.  It’s not obvious where the equities lie here.