Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

By Bob L. Olson 

Nevada has a one-action rule which, with limited exceptions, requires a creditor seeking to recover a debt secured by real property to proceed against the security first prior to seeking recovery from the debtor personally. In the event that a law suit is filed in violation of the one-action rule, final judgment may be entered in favor of the creditor but that judgment “releases and discharges the mortgage or other lien.”  NRS 40.455(3).  Nevada law further provides that, with the exception of certain guaranties, any provision in an agreement relating to the sale of real property which contains a waiver of Nevada’s anti-deficiency laws may not be enforced by a court because doing so violates Nevada’s public policy. … Read More »

Author: Bob L. Olson | 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 Can Waive Anti-Deficiency Protections

By:  Richard H. Herold and Ben Reeves

In Arizona, guarantors can now be held liable for deficiencies even where borrowers avoid liability due to Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute.

Arizona courts have been active in the last few years in addressing the law governing post-trustee’s sale deficiencies under Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. §33-814(G), which provides that no deficiency action may be maintained “if trust property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling is sold pursuant to [a] trustee’s…sale.” The deficiency is determined by crediting the borrower and guarantor with the higher of: (a) the fair market value of the property on the date of the trustee’s sale; or (b) the sale price at the trustee’s sale, to reduce the total balance due and owing.… Read More »

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

Share this Article:

If Receiver’s Sales Aren’t Foreclosures, What Are They?

By:  Ben Reeves & Bob Olson

When no statute specifically authorizes a court-appointed receiver to sell real property, what type of sale is it?  The Supreme Court of Nevada recently addressed this question, holding that “a receiver sale of real property that secures a loan is a form of judicial foreclosure.”  U.S. Bank v. Palmilla Dev. Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (2015).

Facts

In U.S. Bank v. Palmilla, U.S. Bank made a $20.15 million loan to Palmilla Development Company secured by a development of townhomes.  Palmilla defaulted, and U.S. Bank applied for, and obtained, the appointment of a receiver over its real property collateral.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | 1 Comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Are Vacant Lots Protected Under Arizona’s Anti-deficiency Statutes?

By:  Ben Reeves

No, of course not.  Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes only prohibit deficiency judgments after a trustee’s sale of a “dwelling”.[1]  Under no definition can a vacant lot constitute a “dwelling”.  This was the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in BMO v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC.

In BMO, Shawn and Kristina Rudgear (through their company Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC) borrowed $260,000 to fund construction of a home on a vacant 2.26-acre lot.  This loan was secured by a deed of trust against the lot.

Construction of the home never began, the Rudgears defaulted, and BMO Harris Bank foreclosed via trustee’s sale. 

Read More »
Author: Ben Reeves | 2 Comments Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Update – Prospective Waivers of “Fair Market Value” Hearings are Definitely Void.

fountain-390788_1280By:  Ben Reeves

In 2013, we blogged about the Arizona Court of Appeals’ determination that prospective contractual waivers of “fair market value” hearings are unenforceable as a matter of public policy.  The link to our prior blog post is here.  Although we noted some deficiencies in the Court of Appeals’ reasoning, we recognized that the holding reached a defensible legal result.  On review, the Arizona Supreme Court reached the same outcome…but with a more robust legal analysis.  See CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, et al., No. CV-14-0029 (Ariz. Dec. 31, 2014).[1]

The Arizona Supreme Court held that although Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutory scheme did not expressly prohibit contractual waivers of “fair market value” hearings, Arizona’s overall public policy behind the trustee’s sale process entitled borrowers and guarantors to the protection afforded by a “fair market value” hearing.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | 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:

Borrowers Can Avoid Liability Even After a Trustee’s Sale

By:  Ben Reeves

Since a lender must have a valid debt and valid lien to conduct a trustee’s sale, a borrower that allows the foreclosure sale to occur impliedly agrees that the debt and lien are valid.  In Madison v. Groseth and BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Arizona, 229 Ariz. 299, 301, 275 P.3d 598, 600 (2012), Arizona appellate courts reached that exact conclusion, holding that under A.R.S. § 33-811(C), a borrower that does not obtain an injunction stopping a trustee’s sale waives all defenses to the validity of the sale and all defenses related to the sale. … Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Amendments to Arizona’s Anti-deficiency Statute Exclude Homebuilders from Anti-Deficiency Protection

By:  Ben Reeves

Last Tuesday, April 20, 2014, Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, signed HB 2018 into law.  This bill closes a long-standing loophole that allowed commercial homebuilders to take advantage of Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, even though the statute was originally enacted to protect only homeowners.  In sum, for loans secured by residences that are originated after December 31, 2014, commercial homebuilders will no longer be able to avoid liability based on Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(G).

A.R.S. § 33-814(G) provides that after a trustee’s sale, a lender cannot sue to recover the difference between the value of a “dwelling” and the amount owed on the loan (i.e., the “deficiency”). … Read More »

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

Share this Article:

California Amends its Anti-Deficiency Statute

By:  Ben Reeves

As of January 1, 2014, California amended its anti-deficiency statute to stop mortgage lenders from “collecting” from homeowners on post-foreclosure debts.  Although the amendments were designed to tackle a purely consumer / residential real estate issue, only time will tell if the changes have unintended consequences beyond the consumer / residential realm.

Prior to the amendment, California’s anti-deficiency statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580d, only barred lenders from obtaining a judgment against homeowners to recover the difference between the value of the home after foreclosure and the amount of the debt owed on the mortgage (i.e.Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Arizona Court of Appeals Holds That Certain Residential Developers Are Not Protected By The Anti-Deficiency Statute After Foreclosure Of A Deed Of Trust On Vacant Land

By Eric Spencer and Adam Lang

Nearly three years ago, in M&I Marshall & Isley Bank v. Mueller, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Arizona anti-deficiency statute protects a borrower who started, but never completed, construction of a single-family dwelling before defaulting on its loan. This week, the same appellate court limited those anti-deficiency protections by holding in BMO Harris Bank v. Wildwood that a developer of vacant land – land on which no construction has begun – cannot invoke the anti-deficiency statute as a matter of law, regardless of whether the borrower intends to eventually reside on that land.… Read More »

Author: Adam Lang | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Guarantors Beware! A.R.S. § 33-814 May Not Save You from a Deficiency Judgment

By:  Ben Reeves

In First Credit Union v. Courtney, 309 P.3d 929, 669 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 18 (Ct. App. 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected three creative arguments that A.R.S. § 33-814 protected the guarantors from paying on their guaranty.  The opinion provides a stark reminder that Arizona courts will usually enforce a guarantor’s contractual obligation to repay a debt.

In 2006, First Credit made a $3.56 million construction loan to Orange Grove I, L.L.C. (the “Borrower”).  First Credit secured the loan with a lien against commercial real property called the Appian Estates.  The Courtneys guaranteed repayment of the loan. … Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Arizona’s Anti-deficiency Statute, A.R.S. 33-814(G), Cannot be Prospectively Waived Says the Court of Appeals

Money HouseBy:  Ben Reeves

In Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic, 662 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 26 (Ct. App. 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that provisions in loan documents purporting to waive the applicability of A.R.S. § 33-814(G) violate Arizona public policy and, therefore, are not enforceable under Arizona law.

A.R.S. § 33-814(G) provides that if a lender has a trustee’s sale foreclose of a “property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or a single two-family dwelling . . . [then] no action may be maintained to recover any difference between the amount obtained by sale and the amount of the indebtedness and any interest, costs and expenses.”  This statute is generally referred to as the “anti-deficiency” statute as it generally prevents lenders from suing homeowners for the difference between the amount owed on their mortgage and the value of their home.… Read More »

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

Share this Article:

A Person Owning a Fractional Interest in a Vacation Home is Protected by Arizona’s Anti-deficiency Statute

CabinBy:  Ben Reeves

In Independent Mortgage v. Alaburda, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(G), precluded a lender from suing its borrowers for a deficiency after foreclosing on the borrowers’ fractional interest in a vacation home.  230 Ariz. 181, 281 P.3d 1049 (Ct. App. 2012).

If a lender conducts a trustee’s sale of “trust property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or a single two-family dwelling,” then A.R.S. § 33-814(G) bars a lender from suing a borrower to recover any difference between the value of the property and the amount of debt owed (i.e.Read More »

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

Share this Article: