What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

By: Ben Reeves

Ever wonder what happens if a person challenges the timeliness of a trustee’s sale after the sale already occurred? Waiver of the argument of course!  And, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Waltner, the affirmance of an eviction judgment.

In the Waltner case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-PR4 Trust (the “Bank”), purchased a residential property at a trustee’s sale in September 2015.  The Bank gave the occupant of the house, Sarah Waltner (“Waltner”), notice to vacate the property, but she did not do so.  Accordingly, the Bank filed a summary action to evict Waltner, which the trial court ultimately granted.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | 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:

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:

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:

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:

General Contractor’s Prospective Waiver Of Its Lien Rights Is Enforceable In California

By: Lyndsey Torp

http://www.swlaw.com/attorneys/lyndsey_torp

In another decision favoring lenders (See http://www.swlaw.com/blog/real-estate-litigation/2014/08/29/arizona-supreme-court-to-contractor-sorry-but-equitable-subrogation-of-a-banks-later-deed-of-trust-trumps-earlier-mechanics-lien-rights/), the California Court of Appeal, in an opinion published in September 2014, entitled Moorefield Construction, Inc. v. Intervest Mortgage Investment Company, et al., D065464, held an original contractor can contractually waive or impair its own lien rights, even before it gets paid or performs work, as long as it does not waive or impair the lien rights of its subcontractors. In Moorefield, the court of appeal reversed a trial court’s decision awarding a general contractor $2.2 million on its mechanic’s lien.  In doing so, the court of appeal upheld a subordination agreement that the general contractor, Moorefield Construction, Inc., signed with the lender, Intervest Mortgage, “subordinating” the general contractor’s mechanic’s lien claim to the lender’s deed of trust, which was security for the construction loan.… Read More »

Author: Lyndsey Torp | 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:

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: