darius bursh attorney
IMPACT OF REPEAL of ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1271
As most interested parties now know, Governor Brewer signed House Bill 2008 and with it becoming law in late November, 2009, swept away the recent changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws set to go into effect September 30, 2009. Residential property owners’ collective sigh of relief could be felt throughout the Valley. However, the victory parade could be short, as banking lobby will push hard to bring change to Arizona’s rather broad anti-deficiency statutes.
House Bill 2008, largely a budget bill, included the entire text of A.R.S. Section 33-814, Arizona’s statute addressing deficiency actions following a non-judicial foreclosure (called a trustee’s sale). The recent changes to subsection G, the anti-deficiency rule applicable to residential properties, were deleted entirely, leaving the language as it originally read before Senate Bill 1271 was signed by Gov. Brewer this summer. In addition, Sec. 47(B) of HB 2008 provides that the changes will apply retroactively to from and after September 29, 2009. Read the entire text of the statute on page 27-29 of HB 2008 — http://azgovernor.gov/DMS/upload/PR_090409_HB2008.pdf.
The Valley real estate market is abuzz with predictions about how the repeal of SB 1271 will impact its recovery. One thought is that foreclosures will soar as many lenders who suspended foreclosures in anticipation of SB 1271 taking effect (and being able to sue borrowers for a deficiency – largely non-owner occupied residential owners who would not have satisfied the new anti-deficiency requirements) now proceed with their pending trustee’s sales.
Another thought is that many lenders will be forced to consider alternatives to foreclosure including short sales and modifications. Given the severity of deficiencies on many under water residences in Arizona, lenders facing non-recourse loans may think twice about foreclosure. Short sales typically result in a sales price 20% or higher than what a lender would realize in a foreclosure or REO sale (PMI considerations aside). Without the prospect of recovering a deficiency following a short sale or foreclosure, it only makes sense that lenders entertain short sales.
Others think that deeds in lieu of foreclosure may increase as lenders try to reduce costs of retaking title to a severly underwater property.
Whatever the outcome, owners of residential real estate in Arizona can sleep easier knowing the deficiency rules in place for several decades will remain in place — at least for now.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
LETTER TO ARIZONA LEGISLATORS re ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1271
Here is a copy of the email correspondence I sent to Senator Sylvia Allen today. If anyone has a stake in the change in Arizona’s anti-deficiency law, I ask that you email me your concerns and opinions at mmccain@mblawaz.com. Although I have my own thoughts on this issue, I would like as much input as possible to take to Arizona’s legislators in the coming days.
Senator Allen:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday and hearing my concerns over the passage of SB 1271. I want to stress that, although I support the AAR’s call for a repeal of the statute, I am not currently working on behalf of any one group or association. My concerns are based solely on what I am certain was an incorrect understanding of Arizona law and what I believe is an exaggerated problem of spec builder abuse of existing law (in the overall picture).
In addition, there appears to have been little to no discussion of the many serious consequences this legislation will have on thousands of Arizona property owners. These include garnishment of assets and wages, forced bankruptcies and cancelled debt taxes that could be substantial. All of these issues do not bode well for the average Arizonan at a time when they are struggling to stay afloat. For many people, this bill will either take whatever funds they have left, or push them into bankruptcy and neither result is good for Arizona’s economy.
Moreover, the wording of the statute and each change to the statute will create tremendous ambiguity in the courts and force potentially thousands of helpless property owners to litigate deficiency lawsuits against lenders and their counsel. In such litigation, the owner will now have the burden to establish the requirement that the property was lived in for 6 or more months. Since many lenders have no idea of how the property has been used, homeowners will face “fishing” lawsuits where lenders force them to satisfy their burden of proof in court or face a judgment – even if they in fact lived in the property for countless years. This is a David vs. Goliath scenario waiting to happen.
The certificate of occupancy (C of O) requirement is simply bad law and does not further the intent behind the change to the law. As I have indicated in my prior correspondence, not all cities issue C of O’s, some cities (like Phoenix) only started issuing them in more modern times, and even if a C of O can be obtained where one was not issued, this will tax local governments and their building departments at a time when resources are scarce, and can result in inspections of property and required upgrades to bring a property current (in order to get a C of O).
If this law is not repealed, it will most certainly result in a constitutional challenge by one or more consumer groups. The law was written to have retroactive effect – meaning it will be used against borrowers that entered into contracts long before the law was changed, and before foreclosure proceedings even commenced. In short, it will be used in an effort to change the rules governing the loan agreement and the borrower’s obligations thereunder after the contractual obligations were entered into. Given the vagueness in the law, the impact it will have on existing contractual rights and obligations, the problems with the C of O requirement, and the fact that the premise of the law was flawed, I expect a court to determine the law to be unconstitutional as written.
I am receiving numerous calls from owners and lenders asking about the new law. So far, the lenders I have spoken with are not calling about spec builders in default, but investors of qualifying residential property that will no longer get anti-deficiency treatment if the change in the law stands (despite the fact that the property has been used as a dwelling, albeit perhaps not by the borrower). Since the premise for the need to change the law was incorrect (which it most certainly was), the resulting legislation was inherently flawed. If lenders wanted to change the law to their benefit, they should have done so by presenting an accurate account of the law and with ALL impacts properly discussed and analyzed. I urge you to do what is necessary to repeal this law and bring the lenders and their lobby back to the table during the next normal legislative session to have a well rounded and accurate discussion of the issues at play.
Sincerely,
Marc McCain
Attorney at Law