Skip to main content

Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

By: Kevin J. Parker In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Helvetica Servicing, Inc., v. Pasquan, 2019 WL 3820015, (8/15/19), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between (1) a construction loan (or refinance of same) and (2) a home improvement loan (or refinance of same), as it relates to Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. […]

| 2 min read | Tagged: , , ,
KP
Former Counsel

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 […]

BO

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 […]

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 […]

BR
Partner

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 […]

BR
Partner
BO

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 […]

BR
Partner

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

By:  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 […]

BR
Partner

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 […]

| 2 min read | Tagged: , , , , ,
BO

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 […]

| 3 min read | Tagged: , , ,
BR
Partner

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. […]

| 2 min read | Tagged: , ,
BR
Partner

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 […]

AL

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 […]

| 4 min read | Tagged: , , ,
BR
Partner

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

By:  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 […]

BR
Partner

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

By:  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 […]

BR
Partner