arizona short sales
THE TRUTH ABOUT SHORT SALES AND DEFICENCIES IN ARIZONA
Rarely will a consumer find so much contradicting, confusing and downright incorrect information on a legal topic as they currently do when it comes to short sales and related issues. Rarely heard of just 2-3 years ago, short sales now make up a significant majority of current MLS listings in the metro Phoenix market and the trend doesn’t seem to be changing any time soon. Agents, consumers and other professionals are scrambling to get up to speed on the process, strategies and legal issues surrounding short sales. From a legal perspective, there are three (3) main issues I discuss with clients who may be considering a short sale (or other loan workout for that matter): (1) deficiency issues, (2) credit issues, and (3) cancellation of debt income issues.
With respect to issue #1 – deficiencies, short sales present interesting issues and possible outcomes. Arizona has two anti-deficiency statutes that act to prevent a lender from collecting on a deficiency following a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure on certain residential property situated on 2.5 acres or less. Because these statutes deal with foreclosures, many real estate professionals, including attorneys, take the position that Arizona’s anti-deficiencies have no application to short sales. This is categorically false. Either these real estate professionals do not understand the law, or they are trying to create confusion to help attract clients for their services. While a short sale can result in a deficiency situation where a foreclosure on the same property would not (for instance, without a lender’s agreement to not seek a deficiency, a short sale involving a non-purchase money loan on qualifying property will not extinguish a borrower’s liability for a deficiency, while a foreclosure by the same lender at a non-judicial trustee’s sale will result in the lender being barred from seeking a deficiency), for many loans (specifically, purchase money loans on qualifying property), a short sale should never result in a deficiency for a borrower.
Notwithstanding Arizona’s relatively broad anti-deficiency protections afforded to purchase money loans on qualifying property, lenders continue to misrepresent their rights and borrowers’ liabilities in short sale transactions. Lenders continue to demand cash contributions from borrowers to approve short sales even though they would have no right to seek a deficiency if they foreclosed on the property. Borrowers and their real estate agents should never engage in short sale negotiations without knowing exactly what rights and obligations a lender and borrower have under the loan and any particular workout scenario.
For a more detailed analysis of Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and their applicability to short sale transactions, see my letter to the Editor of Maricopa Lawyer attached.
letter-to-the-editor-of-maricopa-lawyer
Marc McCain, Attorney at Law
McCain & Bursh, PLC
(602) 604-2138
UPDATE ON ARIZONA’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAWS
In Arizona, certain loans on residential real property are subject to what are called anti-deficiency laws. These laws limit a borrower’s liability to its lender if certain requirements are met. However, there are many misconceptions about Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws, when they apply, and whey they don’t. Moreover, Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws have been in recent flux, increasing the confusion in the market and borrowers’ anxiety as they try to navigate a very difficult and stressful situation. Arizona Senate Bill 1271 was passed in the summer of 2009 and briefly became the law until repealed, most recently by Arizona Senate Bill 1004. As a result, Arizona anti-deficiency law will remain unchanged, at least for now. For an understanding of the additional requirements that Senate Bill 1271 would have imposed to get anti-deficiency protection, see prior blog posts at www.marcmccain.com.
With the foregoing as a backdrop, set forth below are the general anti-deficiency rules applicable in Arizona now that Senate Bill 1004 has taken effect. However, borrowers must understand these are only general rules — every situation must be analyzed carefully based on the relevant facts and applicable law. And remember, the law can and may change!
1. In Arizona, if a borrower fails to pay its loan, a lender can foreclose its Deed of Trust lien either judicially per A.R.S. § 33-721 et. seq., or non-judicially by conducting a trustee’s sale per A.R.S. § 33-801 et. seq.
2. If the foreclosure sale price does not pay a lender what it is owed, the lender may generally seek a deficiency against the borrower for the balance of the loan. However, Arizona has what is called an anti-deficiency law that bars a lender from seeking a deficiency in certain situations. The anti-deficiency laws with respect to real property loans in Arizona are found in 2 places – in A.R.S. § 33-729(A) (regarding judicial foreclosures), and A.R.S. § 33-814(G) (regarding trustee’s sales).
3. In determining if Arizona’s anti-deficiency rules apply, the first step is to confirm what law applies to the loan, particularly the lender’s remedies under the Promissory Note. The applicable law should NOT be assumed. Read your Promissory Note and other loan documents carefully and understand their terms and what law will most likely apply to the lender’s rights under the Promissory Note.
4. Assuming Arizona law applies to the lender’s rights under the note, in both judicial foreclosures and trustee’s sales in Arizona, anti-deficiency rules apply only if the property being foreclosed meets the following criteria: (a) 2½ acres or less; and (b) limited to and utilized as a single one-family or single two-family dwelling.
5. For judicial foreclosures under A.R.S. § 33-729(A), there is the additional requirement that the loan be a purchase money (“PM”) loan for the borrower to get anti-deficiency treatment.
6. However, the trustee’s sale statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(G), does NOT require that the loan be a PM loan.
7. Special rule regarding purchase money loans: a PM loan does NOT lose its PM nature when it is refinanced. However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues.
8. In judicial foreclosures, if the loan on qualifying residential property is a non-purchase money (“NPM”) loan, then the lender is not prevented from seeking a deficiency following a foreclosure or from suing borrower on the note. Only lenders that made PM loans on qualifying residential property are prevented from seeking a deficiency or suing the borrower on the note. However, for several reasons, judicial foreclosures on residential property in Arizona are relatively rare — most lenders foreclosure via a trustee’s sale.
9. In a trustee’s sale, both a PM and NPM lender that conducts the trustee’s sale on qualifying property will be prevented from seeking a deficiency after the foreclosure and from suing the borrower directly on the note.
10. Junior liens extinguished by a 1st position foreclosure may be able to sue on the note. The issue is whether the junior loan was a PM or NPM loan – if it was a PM loan on qualifying property, the lender can NOT sue the borrower on the note following the foreclosure; if it was a NPM loan, the lender CAN sue the borrower.
11. Arizona’s Supreme Court has ruled that a PM lender on qualifying property can NOT waive its security and sue directly on its note. This rule should prevent a PM lender on qualifying property from suing a borrower on the note before or after a foreclosure or after a short sale. However, other Lender claims are not barred – e.g. voluntary waste of the property. Moreover, many lenders are ignoring Arizona law in collection efforts and short sale approvals and negotiations.
12. Under the trustee’s sale statute, there is NO requirement that the trustor use the property as a dwelling – just that the property be used by someone as a dwelling. Thus, in most cases, residential investment or rental properties qualify for anti-deficiency treatment, even if they are not owner occupied properties.
13. However, Arizona’s Supreme Court has held that commercial properties and loans secured by residential homes being developed for sale but never utilized as dwellings do NOT qualify for anti-deficiency treatment under the statutes.
14. In addition, Arizona’s courts have ruled that a deed of trust that is a lien against more than one property will not be subject to anti-deficiency rules — the deed of trust needs to be a lien against a single trust property.
15. Even if anti-deficiency rules apply, a borrower will be liable to a lender for any diminution in value of the trust property due to voluntary waste. In other words, don’t damage the property, take fixtures, A/C units, etc., or let the property go to waste.
16. Real property taxes are NOT an owner’s personal obligation, but only a lien against the real property.
17. However, HOA assessments ARE an owner’s personal obligation and if not paid can result in credit damage, lawsuits and other collection efforts.
18. Arizona’s rules governing foreclosures and deficiency issues may apply to short sales, but a borrower must understand the law and its loan and realize that the outcome can be different in a short sale vs. a foreclosure, e.g., a short sale on a NPM loan will generally permit a lender to collect the balance due on its note whereas a trustee’s sale on the same loan will prevent the lender from seeking a deficiency. Short sales also present the parties with the chance to negotiate terms of the short sale and deficiency issues.
19. Consult with qualified tax professionals BEFORE deciding to do a short sale or foreclosure. 1099 income, gains, losses and other tax consequences may result from foreclosures, short sales and loan modifications. Know what tax consequences you will face!
LENDER’S IGNORING ARIZONA LAW IN SHORT SALES
More and more I am seeing lenders be aggressive and unreasonable in demanding money from borrowers during the short sale approval process. Lenders are doing this even where AZ law prohibits them from waiving their security and suing on the note (i.e. where the loan is a purchase money loan on qualifying residential property). As a result, I am stressing the need to be careful about agreeing to terms of a short sale that are not reasonable or contrary to Arizona law – read and understand your documents. Also understand that just because a lender may not have a right to sue on its note based on well settled AZ authority, they may try, whether out of ignorance, arrogance, aggressiveness, or who knows anymore.
What is needed in Arizona is a law that would prohibit lenders from receiving funds in a short sale (over the short sale net proceeds) that would not be permitted by our anti-deficiency statutes and our Courts’ interpretation of the law. Nothing short of a statutory restriction against the type of lender abuses we are seeing will work — we’ve already seen the debacle of the Federal Governments’ loan mod and refinance program. The support for such a bill would be tremendous, the question is whether any groups have the time and money to marshall the effort needed to raise the issue with our legislature and get it through the political process quickly enough to make a difference in this market . . .
BANKS SUE ARIZONA GOV. BREWER TO STOP REPEAL OF CHANGE TO ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAW
Looks like the threat was real. Banks hired one of Arizona’s most seasoned attorneys to block a portion of HB 2008 from taking affect. Among its many provisions, HB 2008 repealed Senate Bill 1271, which made significant changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency law related to trustee’s sales. Senate Bill 1271 became the law September 30, 2009 and impacted investors and second home owners of residential property on 2.5 acres or less. Before passage of Senate Bill 1271, lenders could not seek a deficiency judgment against owners of such property following a trustee’s sale. However, with the passage of Senate Bill 1271, an owner has the burden to prove it lived in the dwelling for at least 6 consecutive months and that a certificate of occupancy was issued for the residence. See prior blog posts on SB 1271 and its myriad of problems.
Banks pushed SB 1271 through the legislature in a hurried fashion and presented inaccurate information to Arizona’s legislators. In fact, virtually all assumptions and statements of existing law and practice containted in the legislative summary for SB 1271 were WRONG (the summary is circulated to legislators and their staff to assist in considering the merits of a bill). Of course, the errors created sympathy for the banks and their bill and it passed with ease. When the local real estate community and consumers figured out what had happened, they were outraged. The outrage was channeled into quick and effective lobbying of our legislators to repeal SB 1271 and its terribly drafted language and unfair ramifications to tens of thousands of Arizona homeowners.
As part of Senator Pierce’s drive to repeal his own bill, he expressed a willingness to raise the issues related to SB 1271 in the next legislative session. Apparently not satisfied with addressing this issue on an even playing field, with ACCURATE INFORMATION AND STATEMENTS OF THE LAW as a backdrop to discussions, banks have now decided that paying thousands to attorneys and suing our Governor is the most productive way to move the ball forward.
While the dust settles on the lawsuit filing, perhaps banks can explain a few things to their Arizona customers (and no doubt, to hundreds of thousands of similarly situated customers in the United States):
1. did banks play a role in the (unreasonable) run up of real estate prices and the current foreclosure crisis?
2. did banks and their agents benefit in making questionable loans based on shoddy underwriting and overly optimistic appraisals — were they paid fees, points, commissions?
3. are banks being transparent with their customers in addressing loan workouts — modifications, short sales, deeds in lieu of foreclosure (remember, banks demand full disclosure of a borrower’s financial information to consider a workout — do the banks open their books to ANYONE including our Fed. Gov’t)?
4. are banks approving workouts of distressed loans/properties where it makes sense to both the bank AND THE BORROWER, or only when it is in the bank’s best interest to do so considering all of the behind the scenes deals at play that the borrrower has no idea are impacting its workout request (such as stimulus money, Gov’t guarantees or insurance of losses, private mortgage insurance, etc)?
5. are banks willing to sacrifice their bottom lines NOW, to assist its borrowers avoid financial ruin (remember banks, today’s foreclosure victims and bankruptcy filers won’t be your customers tomorrow — they won’t have any money).
It is anyone’s guess how this will play out in the Court or Arizona’s legislative process. One thing is for sure, the banks aren’t satisfied with playing within the established rules of Arizona anti-deficiency law. When times are tuffest, banks want to change the rules in their favor, on top of the billions they have already received from US taxpayers. Consumers are asking, where is my assistance, when will the banks work with me and do what makes sense? Unfortunately, unless our local and Federal governments stand up to the banks and their hired guns, consumers will continue to take it in the shorts and ask, where do we look for assistance?
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
BANKS NOT GIVING UP JUST YET ON AZ’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAWS
Investors and second home owners in Arizona should NOT rest easy on the heels of the legislature’s recent repeal of Senate Bill 1271. Recognizing bad law (SB 1271) and bad policy behind it, not to mention the certain backlash from consumers, one might have thought banks would take their defeat in stride and use their resources to work with borrowers to reduce Arizona’s unprecedented foreclosure rate. Unfortunately, the banking industry does not know how to take it lying down. Accordingly to Tom Farley, CEO of the AAR, local banking associations have rounded up a team of overpriced lawyers and have threatened to file a lawsuit challenging the repeal of Senate Bill 1271 unless they get their way with legislation that would change Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute(s) and the protections they bring to Arizona homeowners following a foreclosure or short sale.
My suggestion to Arizona’s homeowners, realtors and lawmakers: don’t let the banks push bad law and bad policy down your throat without taking them to task. Write your legislators – go to www.azleg.gov and make your voice known. Write your local bank president and tell them where your dollars will go if they move forward with their fight on this issue. Ask them if they received TARP or other subsidies on certain loans. Ask them if they are modifying bad loans or approving sensible short sale transactions. Ask them if they played any role in the current real estate mess in Arizona? Did they make money off risky loans based on shoddy underwriting standards? Ask them what they are doing to get this economy moving again – are they lending based on sound standards, will they lend more if they get their way with Senate Bill 1271?
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC
(602) 604-2138