deficiency law
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
ARIZONA’S NEW ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAW RAISES MANY QUESTIONS
Arizona’s anti-deficiency law with respect to trustee’s sales is changing effective September 30, 2009! The change was intended by the legislature to require (1) a trustor (the Borrower) to live in the trust property for at least 6 consecutive months, and (2) that the home had to be completed before a borrower could claim anti-deficiency status. In addition, the borrower now has the burden of proof to establish that it used the property as a dwelling for the required 6-month period. However, the wording of the new statute and the new requirements themselves are not entirely clear on their face. As a result, the change to the statute will undoubtedly lead to more confusion in the marketplace and perhaps, more manipulation of the new statute.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see how lenders act in response to the change and how courts will interpret the new law. Below is a sample of the issues and potential gray areas the new law raises:
1. Does use by the trustor as a dwelling mean the trustor had to live in the property, or merely put it to use by someone as a dwelling — e.g., a renter (note the legislative summary clearly states the intent was that the trustor had to live in the property but this is NOT how the statute is worded – says the trustor must utilize the dwelling for 6 or more consecutive months)?
2. Can a borrower use (or live in) more than 1 property as a dwelling at the same time — for instance a vacation home and a main residence?
3. How will a court interpret the 6 consecutive month requirement? if a borrower that has lived in a home for 3 months goes on an extended vacation, does that stop the clock on the 6 month requirement and require that the borrower use or live in the home for 6 months or more upon return? what about extended illnesses or out of state work assignments?
4. Will the new law be applied retroactively to all loans made before the September 30, 2009 effective date but that result in a foreclosure after such date?
5. Will courts strictly construe the certificate of occupancy requirement or will evidence establishing construction was completed and all approvals and inspections obtained from the governing authorities be sufficient?
6. Can an entity such as a LLC or corporation that owns a home satisfy the requirement that the home be used by or lived in by the trustor — especially where the trustor under the Deed of Trust is the LLC or other entity?
Marc McCain
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law