Published on:

by

Code of Civil Procedure §726 is referred to as the “one action rule,” and the “security first rule.” It provides that, where there is a debt secured by real estate, there may only be one form of action to collect the debt, and that remedy is foreclosure. If it is through a lawsuit for judicial foreclosure, with some exceptions the lender may also obtain a deficiency judgment in that same action. If the lender conducts a non-judicial trustee’s sale, it is barred from collecting for the deficiency. On its face the rule is simple, but what if either the borrower, or the real property, is not located in California where section 726 applies? In that case, lenders and borrowers should consult with a Sacramento and El Dorado real state attorney, as there are numerous statutes and court decisions that cover the issues in this area. One such issue is where the lender gets a deficiency judgment after foreclosure of out of state property. Another issue, discussed here, is where the foreclosure is out of state, but the lender wants to sue for the balance in California. In this case, 726 does not apply.

Yolo real estate attorney one action rule.jpgIn Felton v. West ((1894)102 Cal 266), both parties lived I n California. Felton loaned West over $90,000, and West signed a promissory note, which was secured by property West owned in Oregon. West didn’t pay the loan, and there was a foreclosure sale of the Oregon property. The sale price did not cover the debt, so the lender sued the borrower, in California, for the balance, about $44,000.

Defendant argued that section 726 barred the action. As there was a prior action in Oregon to recover for the same debt, section 726 prohibited the California action- after all, there can be only “one form of action…,” and that already occurred in Oregon.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A Loan Guaranty is a promise by the guarantor to pay the debt of another. In commercial real estate loans they are commonly used to provide additional security to the lender. Such loans are often given to new entities without a financial history, and the lender wants a person (with assets) on the hook for the debt if the entity fails. Last week I discussed a decision where the guarantor excluded a house from liability on the guaranty, but when he sold the home, the cash proceeds could be grabbed by the creditor. This article concerns the scenario in which the guarantor can escape liability, if the it turns out that they signed what courts consider a “sham guaranty.” This could arise due to deliberate action by the lender, insufficient investigation by the lender, or inartfully worded guaranty language. Parties concerned about what exactly their guaranty covers should consult with a Sacramento real estate attorney.

sacramento loan guaranty attorney 1.jpgCivil Code section 2787 provides that a “guarantor is one who promises to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another…” What has become known as a sham guaranty is one where the guarantor is found to be the same as the borrower. The clearest case is where an individual signs a promissory note promising to pay the debt. The lender requires the same individual to sign a guaranty for the same debt, waiving many defenses. For example, there are statutory anti-deficiency protections for real estate borrowers, prohibiting the lender from collecting from the borrower. These protections are not extended to guarantors, and loan guaranties usually have waivers of all these defenses. In the sham guaranty the lender may think that by having the same borrower guaranty the loan allows for a deficiency judgment against the borrower as guarantor. Or, it may be used in hopes that the borrower/guarantor does not understand, and truly expects to be personally liable for the debt.

The sham guaranty defense extends to partnerships. In a general partnership, where each partner is already liable for debts of the partnership, their guaranty of partnership debt would be a sham. For Limited Partnerships, the same could apply to the general partner. River Bank America v. Diller is instructive, in a case where the principals of the corporate general partner signed the guaranty. The Bank wanted the borrower to form a limited partnership to be the borrower. A new entity was formed to be the general partner. The lender always considered the individuals as the primarily obligors, and had them guaranty the loan. The lender did not investigate the financial health of the new entity created to be general partner. The court found that, had the individuals themselves been the general partners, and had they attempted to guarantee the debt, there is no question such guaranty would have been a sham. Instead, the general partner of the primary obligor is a corporation which the individuals fully owned and controlled. However, the court found that this was a distinction without a difference. (The court was influenced also by evidence of the lender’s intent to subvert the antideficiency protection.

Continue reading
Published on:

by


Loan guaranties are contracts in which the guarantor promises to pay the debt if the principal debtor fails to pay. This is not what happens when someone thinks they guaranteed a home mortgage loan for their son or their significant other- they are usually equally liable on the loan. A guaranty more routinely shows up when an entity, such as an LLC or corporation, borrows money or signs a lease. The lender or landlord wants the individuals involved to guaranty the debt. If the guarantor has substantial assets, the lender may allow them to carve out some assets from being available for collection, such as their residence. Loan guarantors should consult with a Sacramento real estate and business attorney to closely review the terms of their guaranty so that they understand what their liability is. In a recent case (which was the first published opinion on the issue in the U.S.), the guarantor excluded a house from liability. He sold the house, and was surprised when the court ruled that, while the house was not attachable to pay the debt, the proceeds of the house (cash from the sale) were not excluded, and could be grabbed by the Lender. That the house was on Lake Como tells you that this was alota cash.

sacramento loan guaranty attorney.jpgIn Series AGI West Linn of Appian Group Investors DE LLC, Series loaned $3.1 million to a limited partnership which was developing a market in Oregon. Robert Eves, the developer, guaranteed the loan. The lender had Eves sign a Loan Guaranty, which provided:

” The following assets are excluded from the Robert J. Eves personal Guaranty: … The personal residence of Robert J. Eves at Via Regina, 27 Moltrasio, Como, Italy and its contents.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Mortgage loan brokers have a duty to mitigate the risk of possible loan fraud in California. The extent that title insurance would do this is a topic for another day, but brokers routinely arrange for title insurance for their lenders. Another protection against fraud is to have signatures notarized; at least the person signing has proven their identity. In a perfect storm for one mortgage Broker, it was the notary committing the fraud, and the trial court judge would not let them submit evidence that they got title insurance to help protect the lender against such acts. The judge claimed that the collateral source rule required the evidence be kept out. With this evidence barred, the Lender hammered the jury with claims that the Broker was negligent and breached its fiduciary duty, and the jury agreed. The appellate court did not.

El dorado real estate lawyer.jpg In Bryan Chanda V. Federal Home Loans Corporation, Chanda was a money lender and Federal was a private mortgage broker. Barker was the office manager for the owner of a commercial building in El Centro. Barker was also a Notary Public. Barker contacted Federal requesting an equity loan of $165,000 on behalf of the owners of the building. Federal’s loan officer wanted to arrange to meet with the owners so that they could sign the note and deed of trust, but Barker said one of the owners was not available. But, she would be happy to take the documents and get their notarized signatures. Barker then forged the signatures, and notarized them. Sacramento real estate trial attorneys rarely see fraudulent notarizations, but when they do, the notary is usually long gone.

Six months later, Barker asked for a larger replacement loan of $480,000. She again forged and notarized the signatures. The property owners learned about the fraud (no indication whether or not Barker had skipped town yet), and sued everyone. A forged deed of trust is not effective (though they can win out over unclean hands). The lender cross-complained against everyone, including Federal for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. All parties and claims settled, except the lender’s claims against the Broker.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

My last post discussed the relative hardship doctrine in California real estate law. This doctrine provides that, once the court determines that a trespass has occurred, the court conducts an equitable balancing to determine whether to grant an injunction prohibiting the trespass, or whether to award damages instead. If the court determines that it will award damages and not disturb the trespass, it essentially gives the trespasser an easement, which may allow exclusive use. This result differs from the law on prescriptive easements, which prohibits granting exclusive prescriptive rights. This blog discusses how it differs For a better understanding, a party with questions should consult with a Sacramento and El Dorado real estate attorney.

ElDorado real estate attorney.jpgIn the decision of Hirshfield v Schwartz, One neighbor in Bel-Air mistakenly encroached on the other neighbor’s property in installing a strong block wall in front, and in the rear, extensive underground water and electrical lines, and several motors (for the pool and waterfall) underground in a concrete and iron enclosure. The judge balanced the hardship to the trespasser to move these items, vs. the harm to the victim, and decided that they did not need to be moved. The trespasser was to compensate the victim instead. In doing so, the judge granted the trespassers an interest in the neighbor’s property, which it called an ‘easement.’ The victim appealed, claiming that this is contrary to the decisions in several prescriptive easement cases, which hold that such an exclusive easement is an unlawful remedy in boundary disputes.

The appellate court disagreed with the prescriptive easement characterization, and thus those decisions were irrelevant. Here’s why.

Continue reading
Published on:

by


When a court is considering whether to grant an injunction to stop an innocent (the trespasser does not know they are trespassing) trespass to real estate, the judge applies the balancing the hardships test – how is the owner whose property is being encroached upon, versus the hardship to the trespasser to remove the encroachment. This is an equitable decision, as opposed to the case of prescriptive easement, in which the judge applies a strict set of statutory rules. Cases have established that there should not be an “exclusive” prescriptive easement. However, in a relative hardship analysis, the court may establish what is actually an exclusive use easement.. Sacramento and El Dorado real estate attorneys may consider the difference in the two remedies in fashioning their claims for relief.

sacramento real estate trespass lawyer.jpgIn Hirshfield v. Schwartz, the Hirshfields were elderly sisters who lived in their Bel-Air house since 1940. The Schwartzes moved in 1979. Both assumed that the chain link fence between their properties marked their property line. The defendants made several improvements: they extended the fence, built waterfalls a koi pond and stone deck, added a putting green and sand trap. After a car entered their front yard, to keep the kids safe they built an exceptionally strong block wall with the largest rebar available. Meanwhile the plaintiff sisters maintained a variety of exotic plants and trees, making it a botanical showplace..

It always starts with a survey, which the plaintiffs did. The survey disclosed that the defendants trespassed on their property in two locations. In the front, the block wall encroached. In the rear, part of the sand trap, extensive underground water and electrical lines, and several motors underground in a concrete and iron enclosure were encroaching. The plaintiffs, claiming that they needed the front portion to build a circular driveway, and the rear portion to install a greenhouse, filed suit to quiet title and trespass.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Often a party to a lawsuit will have great success at trial, resulting in a money judgment. Then the judgment holder tries to collect the judgment, and finds that the debtor is judgment – proof, has no assets, or files bankruptcy to avoid liability for that judgment. Sacramento business attorneys are frequently presented with the problem of an uncollectible judgment. One solution – A judgment may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor; it is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. That happened to a plaintiff in a recent decision, and the court found that the creditor met the test to nail the parties responsible for the damages, who were not originally named defendants.

sacramento business lawyer -judgment debtor.jpgIn Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership, Relentless sued Airborne concerning purchase of a French military jet that was not certified for flight. Relentless won a money judgment for damages of one dollar ($1.00), plus was awarded attorney fees of over $174,000 and costs of over $6,000. Airborne limited partnership was a deadbeat, with no assets, so Relentless could not collect its judgment. Relentless the sought to add the husband and wife team behind Airborne, plus their two corporations, as judgment debtors.

The court first reviewed the law concerning adding additional judgment debtors. The theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. The three-part test requires the judgment holder show:

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Option agreements for sale or lease of property often have a form of lease or purchase agreement attached, to be entered on exercising the option. The expectation is that, if the option is exercised, the attached contract will be signed by the parties and govern the transaction. Occasionally the option will contain all the terms, and not attach a form contract, and may or may not refer to entering an agreement. Sacramento and ElDorado real estate attorneys advise clients to prepare the Agreement and attach it to the option, otherwise there could be a dispute when the option was exercised. In pone such case, after the option to lease property was exercised, the property owner backed out. His legal argument was that the option was only a contract to enter a contract, and did not affect title to his property. The court said no, in this case, the option was sufficient as a lease.

In John Gavina v. Lon Smith, Plaintiff Gavina granted Defendant an option for an oil and gas lease on Gavina’s property. The option stated all the details of the lease, (set out below), but also had an attached lease form that, on exercise of the option, was to be signed by the parties. Smith exercised the option and deposited the money in escrow. Gavina refused to accept the money from the escrow, did not sign the formal lease form, offered to give Smith the option fee back. Essentially, they told Smith to get lost. The lawsuit resulted.

sacramento lease attorney.jpgThe judge was not impressed by Gavina’s conduct. Because of the nature of the suit (quiet title), it first addressed the question of whether the option itself created a contract, or was merely an executable contract to make a lease. It found the intent of the parties, as expressed in the option agreement, to set forth in both the option and the attached form of lease all the terms and conditions on which Gavina’s offer to lease was made. By exercising the option, Smith accepted the offer and agreed to the lease on the those terms. The requirement of a written lease was satisfied. (Statute of Frauds) Nothing more was required to make a binding lease.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Letters of Intent are often ambiguous documents in which parties set out certain key terms of a deal, usually with the intent there will be further negotiation and documentation. They may also be called a ‘term sheet’ or “memorandum of understanding,” and are used extensively in California real estate transactions and Leases as well as in business contracts. The parties usually do not intend this document to be enforceable in court – rather, it is intended to guide further discussions and execution of a formal agreement or approval of a third party. A party entering such a letter should consult with a Sacramento business attorney for guidance in drafting it. However, as open ended as the parties may make them, occasionally they are surprised when a court finds such a letter creates enforceable obligations between the parties. It all depends on the court’s view of the intentions and expectation of the parties. Among the issues considered are whether the parties agreed to the material terms, or left some for later agreement, making it an agreement to agree, and whether the parties intended not to be bound until preparation of a more formal agreement. The two decisions discussed below establish two important rules:

A. A Letter of Intent may be enforceable even if you plan to enter a formal contract. If the material terms of the deal are there, as well as intent, the Letter is enforceable; and,

B. A Letter of Intent may create a duty of the parties to negotiate in good faith, and failure to do so can result in damages.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

An easement is the right of an owner of property (the “dominant tenement”) to use the property of another (the subservient tenement”) for a specified type and extent of use. Most common are roadway easements, to allow the owner of the dominant tenement (the easement holder) access to their own property. If the easement is by grant, as in a deed, hopefully the language clearly spells out the use, otherwise it has to be determined based historical use of the easement. For a properly drafted easement, it would be best to consult with an experienced Sacramento real estate attorney. Additionally, the owner subject to the easement has an obligation not to interfere with its use. Usually, this occurs when a roadway falls into disrepair, some obstruction is placed in the way, or a gate is installed. In a recent decision in So. California, the easement was clearly spelled out, but interfering owner refused to allow the easement holder to improve the road so she could get a building permit, and this was found to be obstruction of the easement.

Sacramento easement lawyer.jpgIn Flora Dolnikov v. Dikran Ekizian, the easement was located in the Hollywood Hills above Laurel Canyon Road. (Google map) The plaintiff Flora had a easement for access to her property (“ingress and egress”) Both parcels were undeveloped; Plaintiff’s lot was uphill from the defendant’s. Flora obtained building permits for two houses on her property. The slope of the easement was too steep and the right of way had fallen into disrepair so that all that remained of the original pavement was substantially covered with dirt and rocks from uphill. The easement was unsuitable for access. The County approved Flora’s grading plan which would lower the soil level 6-8 feet, and build a retaining wall. The defendant complained about the construction, and the County required that the defendant sign off on a community driveway covenant. Defendant refused, first demanding $100,00, then $200,000. This lawsuit was filed.

The trial court found after bench trial they the grading and wall were necessary for the use of the easement for its expressly intended purpose by plaintiff, the owner of the dominant tenement, and that their presence was not in any sense inconsistent with the nature of the easement and were authorized by the easement. Thus, they were a “necessary incident” of the easement. Despite this court order, defendant refused to sign off on the county permit.

Continue reading