Articles Posted in foreclosure

Published on:

by

A deed of trust represents security for the loan. It has several parties- a) the trustor, who is the borrower and owner of record for the real property that is security for the loan; b) the beneficiary, who is the lender whose debt is secured by the deed of trust; and c) the trustee, who holds bare legal title only for the purpose of conveying it in the event of a foreclosure. The deed of trust contains a “power of sale,” giving the trustee the ability to foreclose. Once the deed of trust is created and recorded, if there is a default, the beneficiary routinely changes who the trustee is by recording a “substitution of trustee,” putting a new trustee in the job. Homeowners in this situation should consult with a Sacramento and Yolo real estate attorney to determine their rights. In a recent case, the borrower- homeowner who lost their property to foreclosure realized that the original deed of trust did not name a trustee, and sued to set aside the foreclosure sale. The court said no.

deed of trust attorney sacramento.jpgIn Shuster vs. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (formerly known as Countrywide Loan Servicing) Shuster borrowed $670,000 to buy a house in Simi Valley. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was named beneficiary; but there was no trustee named in the document. Shuster ended up in default, MERS recorded a Substitution of Trustee, and the new trustee foreclosed. Shuster brought this action.

Shuster argued that, with no trustee, there was no one to receive the conveyance of bare legal title. This transforms the deed of trust into a standard mortgage. Under California law, a mortgage that is not standard deed of trust (with a power of sale) may only be foreclosed by judicial foreclosure – filing a lawsuit for foreclosure and obtaining a court order.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

California home buyers often get both a first loan and a second, usually a home equity line of credit, or “HELOC.” Generally, when a second loan is made by a different party, not as a part of the purchase, when the first forecloses, the value of the junior’s security has been wiped out (the 2nd becomes a “sold out junior”). The one form of action rule then does not prevent a lawsuit for the debt on the second. However, when the same lender makes both the 1st and 2nd loans, it is more complicated, and owners in this situation should consult with a Sacramento & Yolo real estate lawyer. There are three typical scenarios that cover possible personal liability for the second, if the first is foreclosed.

2nd deed of trust.JPG1. Original lender holds both first & second, forecloses on first.

➔There is no liability for the second, as it was a purchase money loan.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A California quiet title action can be brought to establish legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in property or cloud upon title against adverse parties. Sacramento and Yolo real estate attorneys occasionally advise clients who, not being able to pursue an action, are interested in assigning their claims to another party. In a recent decision, a party who was assigned a claim for quiet title was not assigned an interest in the property. Surprising to everyone was how well that mistake worked out for the original owner.

In Chao Fu Inc. v. Chen, CFI corporation owned a 25% interest in real estate in Mountain View. CFI’s secretary, Mali, had been doing unrelated business with Chang and had borrowed money from him. Chang got nervous about getting paid, and wanted security for the debt. Mali, with approval of the other principals of CFI, gave Chan a deed of trust against the Mountain View property (owned by CFI) and Chang recorded it.

quiet title action Yolo attorney.jpgWhile the principals were overseas, Chang, the lender, successfully foreclosed the deed of trust and became owner of the 25% interest in the property. To further collect on the balance of the money owed by Mali, the Lender sued her. Mali had CFI assign to her “all of its right, title, interest, and standing to bring suit, to, in, and on, any and all claims and causes of action which it has against Chen…” Mali then filed a cross-complaint against the Lender for wrongful foreclosure & slander of title. However, Mali had to dismiss her claims just before trial, because CFI’s corporate status had been suspended, and thus had no power to pursue legal actions- as a result, the assignment of claims to Mali was void. Mali assigned the claims back to CFI.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

It is a general rule of California real estate law that a forged deed is “void,” not merely voidable. Therefore it cannot convey title, even to a good faith purchaser. A good faith purchaser is one who has no knowledge or suspicion of a problem, and pays reasonable value for what they bought. This applies to a buyer at a foreclosure sale. In such a case the buyer, through no fault of their own, ends up with a legal problem and losing money, a good reason to consult an experienced Sacramento real estate attorney. In a recent decision out of Fresno, the buyer at a foreclosure sale not only lost out, but made their situation worse.

I2nd deed of trust foreclosure.JPGn La Jolla Group II v. Bruce (5th Dist. F061829; 211 CalApp 4th 461), the Baquiran’s owned their home for 16 years. In 2003 a notice of default & note of trustee’s sale were recorded for default on a second deed of trust secured by the residence. However, the Baquirans had no knowledge of a second deed of trust. The foreclosure sale occurred, and La Jolla Group bought the property at the trustee’s sale.

The Baquirans figured out that the second deed of trust was a forgery, and filed suit to quiet title to get the property back. They recorded a notice of action, or Lis Pendens, to provide notice of the suit so that any subsequent buyer of the property is subject to the results of the suit. It turns out that they refinanced in 1997 with broker Williams. Williams got them to sign some documents, which he later revised using whiteout and changing information provided on the document. He brokered some hard money loans, and revised the document so that it appeared to be a deed of trust to one of his hard money lenders. It was this lender who foreclosed.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Often in an escrow for sale or financing of California real estate, money will be held back in escrow to take care of unresolved issues. This is done on agreement of the parties in the real estate purchase and sale contract, or the loan documents and escrow instructions. For example, there may be a lien or tax due with uncertain amount which cannot be determined until after the scheduled close of escrow. Parties with concerns regardin escrow hold backs shcould always consult an experienced Sacramento real estate lawyer. In a decision this summer Citibank was the secured creditor on commercial property who was denied the funds in the escrow hold back.

secured creditor.JPGIn Oxford St. Properties v Rehabilitation Services, Citibank made a refinance loan to a partnership between Oxford & Rehab; Rehab was to buy out Oxford’s partnership interest with most of the money. The Citibank loan was secured by the partnership real property, plus some personal property. Construction loans were paid off, Oxford was partially paid, and over $200,000 was held back in escrow pending clarification of some insurance issues; this money was never paid to Oxford.

A dispute resulted, and Oxford sought arbitration. The first arbitration ruling was that Rehab had to convey the project to Oxford. A second arbitration was held because Rehab neither conveyed the property nor the $200,000, but let the Citibank loan go into default, resulting in a judicial foreclosure and a deficiency judgment. The arbitrator awarded Oxford damages of over $15 million, plus the $200,000 in escrow. Oxford obtained a writ of possession for the money.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

I wrote last about a Sacramento developer who demolished the building on a property to build a mixed-use development. But, the market crashed, the developer defaulted, and the property was foreclosed by trustee’s sale. The lender than sued; in the last post I discussed the claim for bad faith waste.

impairment of security.jpg In Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc., the lender also raised a claim for “intentional impairment of security”, meaning that the borrower intentionally reduced the value of the property which was security for the loan. The defendants again argued that there was no evidence that they acted with intent to harm the value of the real estate. However, the court noted that, in prior decisions, even though the defendants likely knew that their conduct would reduce the value of the property, the courts never required an “intent to harm.” This dies not need to be proven for intentional impairment of security.

Also, this lawsuit was against the corporate borrower plus individual employee defendants. The defendants claimed that the individuals could not be liable for impairment of security as innocent agents of New Faze. Again, the court ruled against them. A prior decision established that third parties could be liable for impairment of security. Civil Code section 1714 provides that everyone is liable for the result of his willful acts, and also for the want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person. As third parties can generally be liable for negligent impairment of security, the defendants had to show that the individuals acted with ordinary care or skill with respect to the security interest in the property.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

It is a general rule of California real estate law that the possessor of property, whether as owner (with a loan against the property), or tenant, not to commit waste. Waste is any act, omission, or neglect that materially reduces the market value of the property. When you take out a loan to buy property, the deed of trust requires that you do not commit waste, and provides that waste can be a default under the terms of the loan. An experienced Sacramento and El Dorado real estate attorney will advise that the reason is that the property secures the debt. Theoretically, the lender gave you an amount equal to or less than what the property is worth, and if you cause the property to become worth less than the loan, the lender is at risk. You seldom see this issue come up in real estate loans, but it did in a surprising way in a recent Sacramento decision.

real estate waste.jpg In Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc., a Sacramento developer purchased two lots containing a church and other small building in 2005. The plan was to redevelop it into a mixed use property. They evicted the tenants and demolished the property in 2006. The economy tanked and the developer defaulted, resulting in a foreclosure sale of the bare land. The lender then sued for bad faith waste and intentional impairment of security- demolishing the building reduced the value of the property, and thus what the lender got on the foreclosure sale.

The trial court threw out the bad faith waste claim, finding that there was no evidence of recklessness and intent to despoil the property. But the court of appeals reversed – evidence of recklessness and intent to despoil is not required, based on the 1975 California Supreme Court decision in Cornelison.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The economic crisis and the subsequent foreclosures resulted in the California legislature enacting a number of laws to assist homeowners and tenants of houses in trouble. One such law, Civil Code section 2923.5, requires that the foreclosing party must first contact the borrower, assess their financial condition, and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. A California court recently ruled that borrower can allege failure to follow the requirement gives the borrower the right to make a claim in court.

foreclosure Civil 2923.5.jpgThe borrower in Skov v. U.S. Bank National Association borrowed $1.5 million in 2003, secured by her residential property in Saratoga. She stopped making payments, and a Notice of default was recorded in June 2009. (This is not the usual case, housing price inflation was not rampant in 2003) Skov filed suit; it is not clear from the opinion, but looks like suit was filed before the foreclosure sale (good move) and Skov probably got a preliminary injunction.

One of the plaintiff’s claims was that U.S. Bank did not follow the requirements of Civil Code section 2923.5. It was claimed that U. S. Bank never contacted Skov before recording the notice of default. She hired attorneys who telephoned and sent letters to U.S. Bank which were unanswered. U.S. Bank failed to evaluate her finances or explore options to avoid foreclosure. U.S. Bank did not contact her until a month after it recorded the Notice of default.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

commercial foreclosure.jpg Title companies often prepare complicated documents, such as deeds of trust, grant deeds, an promissory notes to accommodate closing escrows, which results in their fees. There can be mistakes that vary in seriousness, and sometimes the only solution is to have the Court order a document re-formed. A recent decision points out the problems that can arise when a property was sold for $7.2 million dollars, and the seller did not have an experienced Sacramento and Placer real estate attorney review their documents.

In Park v American Title, park sold a Fresno property for $7.2 million. Park took back a second deed of trust securing a purchase money note in the amount of $2.45 million. First American Title (FAT) was the escrow holder for the transaction. The buyer defaulted, and in September 2006 Park told FAT to prepare a notice of default. Three months later, when the Notice of Sale should have been recorded, the Title Company told Park that they had made a mistake preparing the deed of trust. The deed of trust named the individual buyers as trustors, while the grant deed conveyed the property to the buyer’s corporation. But FAT thought they could still conduct the foreclosure sale, set for February 23, 2006.

Fifteen days before the sale, FAT declared that it could not conduct the sale, and the deed of trust would have to be reformed. This is a process by which a party files a lawsuit to obtain a court order reforming, or revising and correcting, the problem document. The title company had to get the corporation named os trustors in the deed of trust. This took time, after which the owners filed bankruptcy, resulting in a delay of one and ½ years for the foreclosure sale in April 2008. There were no bidders by then (did the real estate market change between 2006 & 2008?) And park got the property back. Park sued FAT.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

old_book.jpg In historical terms, the California deed of trust is a recent development. Originally parties used a “mortgage” in which the property was conveyed by the buyer to the lender, subject to payment of the debt. Prior to payment of the debt, the lender was entitled to possession of the property. Use of the deed of trust with power of sale was developed to get around some of the restrictions of the mortgage and the required judicial foreclosure, a time consuming lawsuit. The property was conveyed to the buyer, who kept the right to possession, but he then conveys “nominal title” to the trustee, who, on instruction from the lender, could hold a foreclosure (by trustee’s sale) without court involvement. Borrowers and lenders concerned with the difference should contact an experienced Sacramento & El Dorado real estate attorney.

The deed of trust became the dominant security device in California in the early part of the 19th century. Mortgages could also be granted with a power of sale, and eventually the legal distinctions between the two disappeared, almost. The mortgage became considered only a lien against the property, and the buyer-borrower kept the right to possession, just like in the case of the deed of trust.

In California there is “little practical difference between mortgages and deeds of trust,…they perform the same basic function, and…a deed of trust is ‘practically and substantially only a mortgage with power of sale..,deeds of trust are analogized to mortgages, and the same rules are generally applied to deeds of trust that are applied to mortgages.” Domarad v. Fisher ( 270 Cal. App. 2d 543)

Continue reading