Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

By: Anthony J. Carucci

In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):

If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.

Read More »
Author: acarucci | Leave a comment Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

By:  Richard H. Herold

The Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed what impact, if any, a lender’s credit bid at an Arizona trustee’s sale has on an insurer’s liability under Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the standard’s lender’s title policy (“Policy”), holding in Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 241 Ariz. 334, 387 P.3d 1263 (February 7, 2017) as follows:

  1. Section 2 of the Policy, entitled “Continuation of Insurance,” not Section 9, entitled “Reduction of Insurance; Reduction or Termination of Liability,” applies when a lender acquires property at a trustee sale by “either a full- or partial-credit bid” since Section 2 directly addresses the existence and amount of coverage in such circumstances.
Read More »
Author: Richard Herold | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

By: Anthony J. Carucci

California’s one-action rule provides that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726(a). In other words, the one-action rule prescribes that the only process for recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is to foreclose on the lien. The rule aims to prevent a multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation, and to force a beneficiary to look to all of the security as the primary fund for payment of a debt before looking to the trustor’s other assets.… Read More »

Author: acarucci | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Guarantors’ “Lost Profits” Completely Offset Lender’s Deficiency Claim

By: Ben Reeves

Believe it or not, lenders can breach loan agreements too…and when they do, there can be significant consequences. In Great Western Bank v. LJC Dev., LLC, 726 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 21 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed that guarantors’ “lost profits” resulting from the lender’s breach of a loan agreement completely offset the amount owed under the guaranty. Much can be learned from this unusual outcome, so please continue reading for an analysis of the facts and legal principles of this case.

The Loan Agreements

In Great Western Bank, the bank entered into an acquisition and development loan (the “A&D Loan”) with Cedar Ridge Investments, LLC (“Borrower”) to allow Borrower to acquire and begin the development of infrastructure for a fifty-home subdivision in Flagstaff, AZ to be known as Cedar Ridge.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Courts to Apply More Protective State Law when Analyzing Validity of Pre-dispute Jury Trial Waivers in Diversity Jurisdiction Cases

By Anthony J. Carucci

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the underlying state law to determine the validity of pre-dispute jury trial waivers where the state law is more protective than the federal law. In re Cnty. of Orange, No. 14-72343, 2015 WL 1727240, at *4–5 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2015).

Facts/Procedural History

In 2007, plaintiff County of Orange (the “County”) hired defendant Tata America International Corporation (“Tata”) to develop a property tax management system. Id. at *5. In 2008, the parties entered into a contract for that purpose, which included an unambiguous jury trial waiver.… Read More »

Author: Sean M. Sherlock | Leave a comment Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Guarantor Waivers Narrowed

By:  Lyndsey A. Torp and Sean M. Sherlock

A general waiver by a guarantor of “all defenses” does not actually waive “all defenses.”   California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2014 WL 6908141 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.).  That was the holding in a recent opinion wherein the California Court of Appeal affirmed judgment against a lender, holding that the bank could not recover on its loan guaranties because it had breached the underlying loan agreement.

In California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, borrower obtained a construction loan from Vineyard Bank (which was later assigned to California Bank & Trust) to develop a townhome project, with guaranties from two principals of the borrower. … Read More »

Author: Sean M. Sherlock | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

California Case Requires Arbitration Despite Lack of Actual Controversy

 

By:  Lyndsey A. Torp and Sean M. Sherlock

For parties to litigate a contract dispute in a court of law, the parties’ disagreement must have ripened into an actual controversy presenting more than a mere academic difference of opinion.  But under a recent California Court of Appeal opinion, no actual controversy is required to compel arbitration over a disagreement.  Bunker Hill Park Limited v. U.S. Bank National Association, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2014 WL 6684796 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.).  To avoid being compelled to arbitrate purely academic disagreements, parties should draft their arbitration clauses to limit arbitrable disputes to those that have ripened into actual controversies.… Read More »

Author: Sean M. Sherlock | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Guarantors Remain Liable for “Carve-out” Obligations, Despite Non-recourse Loan

By:  Ben Reeves

Introduction

Believe it or not, guaranty contracts mean what they say.  If a guarantor agrees to reimburse a lender for misappropriated security deposits, unpaid taxes, and the cost of enforcement, then – not surprisingly – courts will hold the guarantors liable for these expenses.

In Investors Warranty of America, Inc. v. Arrowhead Business Center, L.P., the guarantors signed a limited guaranty contract obligating them to pay up to $350,000 if the borrower defaulted on the $5,250,000 commercial loan secured by an office building in Peoria.  In addition to this capped amount, the guarantors agreed to pay for certain “carve-out” expenses, including misappropriated security deposits, unpaid taxes, and costs of enforcement. … Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Guarantors Score Two Victories Before the Nevada Supreme Court.

By:  Bob Olson and Nathan Kanute

On May 29, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court issued two decisions that all real estate lenders need to be aware of because they have the potential to eliminate the ability of a lender to recover a deficiency judgment from a guarantor.

In Nevada it is common for lenders to commence foreclosure proceedings and, at the same time, sue all guarantors that have waived the benefit of Nevada’s one-action rule for the full amount of the debt they guaranteed.  Often the foreclosure sale will occur before lender obtains a judgment against the guarantor.  In Lavi v.Read More »

Author: Bob L. Olson | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Nevada Supreme Court and District Court Issue Decisions Regarding Nevada’s Limitations on Deficiency Judgments.

By:  Bob Olson and Nathan Kanute

In 2011 the Nevada Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 273 (“AB 273”) which amended NRS 40.459 by limiting deficiency judgments to the difference between the amount the lender paid to acquire the loan or obligation and the larger of the market value of the property or the amount paid for the property at a foreclosure sale.  As one can imagine, a large number of borrowers and guarantors have tried to take advantage of this recent law to limit or in some cases eliminate their liability for deficiencies.  Creditors, on the other hand, have cried foul by arguing that, among other things, the law cannot be applied retroactively, it impairs the value of their pre-enactment paper and violates the Contracts Clauses of both the United States and Nevada Constitutions. … Read More »

Author: Bob L. Olson | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Unmitigated Waivers: Guarantors Remain Liable Despite 4-Year Delay in Foreclosure Sale

debt clockBy:  Ben Reeves

If a lender delays foreclosure allowing years of default interest to accrue such that a guarantor’s obligation increases from $6 million to $12 million, should the guarantor remain on the hook for the full $12 million?  In Pi’ikea, LLC v. Williamson, 683 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 32 (Ct. App. 2014), the Arizona Court of Appeals recently confirmed that if the guarantor waived the “mitigation of damages” or “impairment of collateral” defense in its guaranty contract, then the answer is an unmitigated YES.

The Facts

In 2004, TBM Equities, LLC borrowed $5,922,000 to build an apartment complex in Tucson, AZ. … Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article: