Can You Waive the Right to a “Fair Market Value” Hearing?

By:  Ben Reeves

We finally have an answer to the question of whether parties can contractually waive the right to a “fair market value” hearing under Arizona law – and the answer, according to the Court of Appeals – is “no.”

In CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC et al., No. 1CA-CV 12-0167 (Ariz. Ct. App. September 10, 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that Arizona’s deficiency statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(A), prohibits a party from waiving the right to a “fair market value” hearing.  This statute generally entitles borrowers and guarantors to an evidentiary “fair market value” hearing to determine the value of foreclosed property that should be applied towards repayment of the debt that was secured by the foreclosed property. … Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | 1 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.R.S. § 33-814(A) and Bankruptcy Proofs of Claim: To File or Not to File…Conflicting Cases Leave Creditors With No Clear Answer

By: Ben Reeves

Under Arizona law, does a secured creditor need to file a deficiency action within 90 days after a trustee’s sale to preserve the unsecured portion of its claim in a bankruptcy case? Or is filing (or amending) a proof of claim sufficient? Two recent cases out of Arizona provide conflicting answers.

The two cases reached the issue based on a similar fact pattern. In both cases, the debtors stipulated to relief from the automatic stay to allow a trustee’s sale to occur. In both cases, the sales resulted in substantial, unsecured deficiencies. In both cases, the trustees objected to the unsecured portion of the unsecured claims based on the lenders’ alleged failure to comply with A.R.S.Read More »

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

Share this Article: