deficiency laws
Arizona’s Anti-deficiency laws — what are they and for how long?
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. The recent changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws were the result of Arizona Senate Bill 1271 which took effect on September 30, 2009 (for an understanding of the additional requirements imposed under Senate Bill 1271, effective since September 30, 2009 and until HB 2008 takes effect, see prior blog posts at www.marcmccain.com or contact the author).
However, Arizona House Bill 2008 was recently passed and signed by Governor Brewer and is slated to become law in late November, 2009. HB 2008 contained a repeal of the changes to the anti-deficiency law made by Senate Bill 1271 and included a clause that made the repeal retroactive to September 29, 2009. Thus, local practitioners have been operating under the premise that HB 2008 will be applied retroactively as written and that the requirements implemented by SB 1271 will never by applied in practice. However, the banks have now sued Governor Brewer to stop the repeal of SB 1271 from taking effect, or at least to increase their leverage in introducing new legislation that would limit the broad application of Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws.
With the foregoing as a backdrop, set forth below are the general anti-deficiency rules applicable in Arizona once HB 2008 takes effect later this month (assuming that is the case). If banks are successful in keeping SB 1271 on the books, a borrower must understand how the changes made by SB 1271 affect their situation. Moreover, if your foreclosure or workout falls within the “window period” of September 30, 2009 until the date HB 2008 and its change to the anti-deficiency law takes effect, you should consider the additional risks related to your foreclosure or workout given the potential application of SB 1271. 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 does not pay a lender what it is owed, the lender may generally seek a deficiency against the borrower for balance of the loan. However, certain states, including Arizona, have what are called anti-deficiency laws that bar a lender from seeking a deficiency in certain situations.
3. In determining if 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.
4. Assuming Arizona law applies to the lender’s rights under the Promissory Note, Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws 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).
5. In both judicial foreclosures and trustee’s sales, 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. NOTE: SB 1271 made changes to A.R.S. § 33-814(G) AND THESE CHANGES ARE NOT SET FORTH IN THIS SUMMARY IN DETAIL. HOWEVER, SB 1271 IS TECHNICALLY THE LAW UNTIL HB 2008 TAKES EFFECT. Any borrower should understand the changes to A.R.S. § 33-814(G) made by SB 1271 and the status of HB 2008 before agreeing to any workout or foreclosure.
6. 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. However, the trustee’s sale statute, A.R.S. § 33-
continued…
814(G), does NOT require that the loan be a PM loan. A PM loan does NOT lose its PM nature when it is refinanced. However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues.
7. In judicial foreclosures, only a PM lender on qualifying residential property is prevented from seeking a deficiency; a non-purchase money (“NPM”) lender is not – it can obtain a deficiency following a foreclosure or sue the borrower on the note. For several reasons, judicial foreclosures on residential property in Arizona are relatively rare — most lenders foreclosure via a trustee’s sale.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. If a lender can not seek a deficiency, then the lender can NOT waive its security and sue directly on its note. This means that a lender under a PM loan on qualifying property will NOT be able to sue the borrower on the note – before or after the foreclosure. This rule also applies to short sales. However, other Lender claims are not barred – e.g. mortgage fraud.
11. Under the trustee’s sale statute (WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANGES MADE BY SB 1271), 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. HOWEVER, IF SB 1271 IS APPLIED, THE BORROWER MUST ESTABLISH THAT IT, THE BORROWER, UTILIZED THE PROPERTY AS ITS DWELLING FOR AT LEAST 6 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS. THIS COULD MEAN THAT CERTAIN INVESTMENT OR RENTAL PROPERTIES MAY NOT QUALIFY FOR ANTI-DEFICIENCY TREATMENT).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Real property taxes are NOT an owner’s personal obligation, but only a lien against the real property.
16. However, HOA assessments ARE an owner’s personal obligation and if not paid can result in credit damage, lawsuits and other collection efforts.
17. Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes and the cases interpreting them generally apply to short sales, but with some nuances. Borrowers must be careful when analyzing short sales and their potential liability after the sale. In some cases, a short sale will permit a lender to collect the balance due on its note whereas a foreclosure on the same property may bar a lender from seeking a deficiency.
18. 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!
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
BANK LOBBYISTS CAN’T KEEP STORY STRAIGHT RE ARIZ. SENATE BILL 1271
Bank lobbyists told Arizona’s legislators that our anti-deficiency statutes needed to be revised because spec builders were “gaming the system” by claiming they lived in their spec homes to get anti-deficiency treatment. The Senate’s internal memo on the bill stated that investment properties were “NOT” protected by existing anti-deficiency laws. No one paid attention to the arguments or the law. The bill sailed through both chambers without a fight and was signed into law.
When real estate professionals and consumers realized what had happened, they were enraged, and a little embarrassed that such a spin job had just been orchestrated right under their collective noses. As the complaints rolled in and problem after problem (with the bill) was highlighted, the banking lobby changed its tune. Suddenly, the bill wasn’t just about spec builders, but more about investors and fraud on banks. But remember, the legislature believed that investors didn’t get protection under existing laws. So why in the world would the issue suddenly be about investors when the new law was passed with our lawmakers thinking they didn’t get protection anyway?
Why? Because bank lobbyists knew they had been outed and also knew that placing the blame on “investors” plays well in the media. At least until you stop and ask yourself “who is an investor”. Banks would like you to think we are talking about institutional investors with pockets spilling over with cash. This may be true for some homes purchased as investments, but it is far from the typical profile of an “investor”.
First, most big money home investors buy homes with cash – thus, there is no home loan and no issue of a deficiency. Second, and most importantly, the typical investor I meet is your next door neighbor, your friend, your retired teacher or grocery store manager. They are not ”rich”, are not trying to “game the system” and not void of moral guilt about being unable to pay their mortgage.
The “investors” I meet are hard working, honest, credit worthy individuals that wanted simply to get a piece of Arizona’s real estate profits. In many cases, they were counseled to buy a property by real estate agents, mortgage brokers, appraisers and lenders that all told the same story. You know the fairy tale — prices will continue to rise, you’ll be able to sell the property in a year or 2 for a good profit, or refinance the loan into a better loan and pull money out. Real estate prices never fall, so it can’t go wrong. Nice story huh? Too bad so many of us fell for it and are now holding the bag.
So, the closing occurred and lenders, mortgage brokers, appraisers, title companies and inspection companies all got paid. The investor started making payments on its new found goldmine. The loan was immediately sold, the bank replenshed its pockets and the process started anew with another credit worthy investor. Until the bubble burst and we all realized we had been sold fools gold. The “investor” now held an overvalued asset that couldn’t sell for the loan balance, and couldn’t be rented for anything close to satisfy the monthly payments. Investors started losing jobs, the loan market dried up and lenders wouldn’t (and won’t) work with their borrowers to modify loans to match market conditions (despite Government assistance and lots of pushing).
So it is only logical that after fueling the real estate bubble in Arizona, banks want to change the anti-deficiency law with a minute to go in the game — right before a foreclosure occurs. Selling or taking back the property they took as collateral is not enough they say — they need to take whatever hard earned money the investor may have left – wage garnishment, cash and securities, non-exempt assets. You name it — they want it.
Way to go Arizona’s legislature — keep giving banks another lifeline. They haven’t received enough as it is. Take away the one protection Arizona consumers have in the residential real estate market –they don’t need it. After all, our State and Federal Gov’t will surely be giving consumers their own bailout soon — right???
Marc McCain
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138