Tag Archives: security interest

Promissory Note v. Mortgage

Posted on by

photo by Thugvillage

 

Zing! quoted me in What’s the Difference Between a Promissory Note and a Mortgage? It opens,

Buying a home can sometimes feel like learning a new language. Preapprovals, appraisals and the fact that “concessions” don’t involve hot dogs at a baseball game can be more than a little bewildering for first-time homebuyers. If you’re in the market for a mortgage, the more you know, the more confident you’ll be with each transaction during the life of the loan. If you find yourself scratching your head over mortgage lingo, we’d like to make your contract a little clearer by explaining two items that are often confused for one another: a promissory note and a mortgage.

What’s a Promissory Note?

Essentially, a promissory note is an agreement that promises that the money borrowed from a lender will be paid back by the borrower. “It also includes how the loan is to be repaid, such as the monthly amount and the length of time for repayment,” explains David Bakke, a finance expert at MoneyCrashers.com.

Although the home loan process involves both a mortgage and a promissory note, a promissory note can be used singularly in a lending relationship between two individuals. In this case, a promissory note is simply a promise to pay back the amount of money that is borrowed in a set amount of time.

“Another way to think of it is that the promissory note is the IOU for the home loan,” says David Reiss, who teaches about residential real estate as a law professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York.

What Is a Mortgage?

The second part of the home loan involves a mortgage, also referred to as a deed of trust. While a promissory note provides the financial details of the loan’s repayment, such as the interest rate and method of payment, a mortgage specifies the procedure that will be followed if the borrower doesn’t repay the loan.

“The actual home loan (or mortgage) provides information as far as the lender being able to demand complete repayment if the loan goes into default, or that the property can be sold if the buyer fails to repay,” says Bakke.

In the case of a home loan, the promissory note is a private contract between the client and the lender, while the mortgage is filed in the regional government records office. “Once you have paid off your loan your lender will record a document that releases you from the liability of the deed of trust and the promissory note,” says Ross Kilburn, CEO of Ark Law Group, PLLC.

It’s a Package Deal

In the home loan process, a mortgage and a promissory note are not a question of one or the other, but rather, both play distinct roles in the relationship between the lender and borrower. “A home loan refers to a transaction where a borrower borrows money from the lender and in turn signs a promissory note that reflects the indebtedness as well as a mortgage that gives a security interest in the home in case the debt is not paid back,” explains Reiss.

Hawaii Court Holds that Debtor had Standing to Enforce Note and Mortgage Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301(ii) Even Though it was a Non-Holder

Posted on by

The court in deciding 1250 Oceanside Partners v. Katcher, 2013 Bankr. (D. Haw. 2013) recommended that the district court enter a decree of foreclosure in favor of the debtor.

The debtor in possession of 1250 Oceanside Partners sought to enforce a promissory note and foreclose a mortgage made by defendants, the Katchers. Oceanside sought summary judgment, the Katchers argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, that Oceanside was not entitled to foreclose, and that if it was entitled to foreclose, it was not entitled to a deficiency judgment.

The court found that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that Oceanside was entitled to foreclose on the property, but it was not entitled to a deficiency judgment against the Katchers at this stage in the litigation.

The court held that the debtor had standing to enforce the note and mortgage under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301(ii) even though it was a non-holder, as it was in possession of the note and had the rights of a holder. The court also found that the mortgagors’ defenses to foreclosure were based entirely on debtor’s failure to develop a project as the purchase contract required, but the terms of the purchase contract provided that the mortgagors’ claims against debtor would be decided separately from debtor’s foreclosure claims. Moreover, the debtor’s claim for a deficiency judgment related to monetary damages or costs and thus, was subject to arbitration under the agreement.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Rules That a Party Perfects its Security Interests in Disputed Loans by Taking Possession of the Notes as Opposed to Recording the Mortgage Assignments, Pursuant to UCC Article 9

Posted on by

In Provident Bank v. Community Home Mortgage Corp., 498 F.Supp.2d 558, 558 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled in favor of intervenor-plaintiff NetBank, granting its cross motion for summary judgment against intervenor-plaintiff, Southwest Securities Bank (herein described as Southwest) in a dispute regarding conflicting recorded mortgage assignments for nine loans. The court stated that “where parties assert competing interests in mortgage assignments,” under Article 9, “possession of the note perfects the assignee’s security interest regardless of whether any mortgage securing the note has been properly recorded.” It concluded that NetBank perfected its interest in eight of the nine disputed loans and took possession of them before Southwest, giving it a superior interest in those loans.

Confusion over who possessed the loans started when Defendant Community, a mortgage banker, entered into agreements with two banks, Southwest and RBMG (NetBank’s successor in interest), to fund a portion of its mortgage loans. Community entered Mortgage Purchase Agreements with both banks and engaged in a scheme known as “double booking,” where it “obtained duplicate funding for one loan from two different lenders and retained the entire value of the loan.” Essentially, “Community created two original notes and mortgages for each of the disputed loans.” Because of Community’s fraud “only one of the lenders would be paid in full,” and each bank claimed a priority interest in the nine loans that Community sold to it. Southwest recorded its assignments of the mortgages before RBMG for five of the loans, but RBMG received the original notes and assignments for eight of the loans before Southwest.

In determining which of the loans belonged to Southwest or NetBank and which of the mortgages were valid, the court had to decide “whether Article 9 or state real property law governs the security interests in mortgages.”  Under Article 9, a party perfects it security interest in a note by taking possession of it. Alternatively, under “race-notice statutes in state real property law,” a party perfects its security interest in a mortgage by recording the assignment. Southwest argued that the court should follow New York’s race-notice statute, whereas RBMG argued that Article 9 should govern.

Before reaching its decision, the court examined the New York Real Property Law Section 291, which states that a “bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of a junior mortgage, who records his assignment is entitled to priority over a prior unrecorded mortgage of which his assignor has full knowledge.” It explained that previous decisions applying the statute did not address instances where the “first party to record a mortgage assignment [had] a prior interest over another party who first takes possession of the note securing the mortgage.”  The court stated that in this case, the question depended on the “supremacy of perfecting the security interest in the note [as opposed to previous cases which regarded] perfecting the security interest in the mortgage.”

According to the statute’s language and precedent decisions regarding the same issue, Southwest would have a priority interest in five of the loans that it recorded before RMGA. Instead, the court applied Article 3 and Article 9 of the UCC in reaching its conclusions. It stated that “NetBank perfected its security interest in the loans and Southwest,” did not. The court agreed with previous cases in the Circuit which held that, “perfection of a security interest in the note (by taking possession under Article 9) should carry over to the mortgage incidental to it.” It explained that in New York, assignment of a note creates a security interest in the note, but a party perfects its security interest in the note by possessing it. From this reasoning, the court determined Southwest was not the first party to perfect its security interest in the loans, as it merely recorded its mortgage assignments but never possessed them. Therefore, the court denied Southwest’s motion for summary judgment requesting possession over the disputed loans.

Instead, the court granted NetBank’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Article 9, as it possessed eight of the disputed loans before Southwest. It also held that under UCC Article 3, NetBank qualified as a holder in due course (defined as a holder of a negotiable instrument who takes it for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored) in regards to seven of the loans, entitling it to those loans independent of its possession under Article 9.