foreclosure and deficiency
COMMON MYTHS ABOUT ARIZONA FORECLOSURES AND SHORT SALES
Over the past 18 + months of advising owners of distressed property, several common myths have emerged regarding foreclosures and short sales in Arizona. Here is a list of common myths.
1. Only purchase money loans on qualifying residential property get anti-deficiency protection in Arizona. This is not necessarily true. If the holder of a mortgage secured by a single 1 or 2 family dwelling on 2.5 acres or less forecloses via a trustee’s sale, that lender will be barred from seeking a deficiency pursuant to A.R.S. 33-814(G). However, rights of junior lien holders and the right of a lender to waive its rights under a Deed of Trust and sue a borrower on its note must be analyzed under a different context.
2. A borrower must have occupied its residential property as its primary residence to get anti-deficiency protection. This is simply not true. Although a recent amendment to A.R.S. 33-814(G) intended to impose a requirement for the borrower to have lived in the property, this law was subsequently repealed such that it never took effect. In Arizona, the anti-deficiency statutes have always been interpreted to only require that a qualifying residential property have been put to use as a dwelling by someone, not necessarily the actual borrower.
3. Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes have no application to short sales because a short sale is not a foreclosure. It is true that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes are contained within the judicial and non-judicial foreclosure statutes and that a short sale is not a foreclosure. However, in 1988 Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled that a lender can not waive its security and sue on the note in certain circumstances. Moreover, Arizona cases interpreting Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes provide strong authority that should restrict a lender’s right to sue a borrower where Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws would apply to a lender in a foreclosure context. In short, if a lender makes (or holds) a purchase money loan on qualifying residential property, that lender’s rights to sue a borrower for lack of payment on the note are severely restricted, if not altogether prohibited. However, lenders continue to press their rights following short sales where they have not expressly waived their right to a deficiency and argue that certian court decisions are very fact specific and thus, that a borrower may have liability following a short sale. For this reason, having legal counsel and understanding your risks are prerequisites to a short sale. A borrower should not assume that a lender won’t, and/or can’t, sue for a deficiency following a short sale.
4. A short sale will always be better for a borrower’s credit. Although I am not a credit counselor and do not profess to understand all the ins and outs of how a credit score is calculated (does anyone?), in most cases, a lender will require a borrower to be delinquent before contemplating a short sale. As a result, a borrower’s credit is almost certainly to be hurt before the short sale is consummated, and once it is, the reporting of the sale as a short sale will generally damage one’s credit even further. However, a potential benefit of a short sale is the ability (in concept) to qualify for certain loans sooner versus having a foreclosure on one’s record.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
(602) 604-2138
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. Every borrower and owner should consult independent legal counsel to review their situation and evaluate their risks and issues. Any opinions expressed herein are based on the author’s interpretation of existing law, anti-deficiency policies and practical experiences working in the area. However, the facts of each case can be different and different facts can result in different outcomes. Moreover, the law can change and courts will continue to shape the interpretation of statutes addressing these and related issues.
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. However, every borrower should consult with legal counsel to understand the nature of its loan and the lender’s ability to seek a deficiency after a foreclosure or short sale.
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 and lenders will continue to assert rights in situations where the law is not 100% clear!
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. Refinanced loans present interesting issues. Based on an Arizona Appellate Court case, a good argument exists that a PM loan should not lose its PM nature when it is refinanced. However, cash out refi’s raise interesting issues and some lenders and their counsel argue that a refinance of a PM loan from a new lender should not be given purchase money protection, notwithstanding Arizona’s strong policies underlying its anti-deficiency laws. Remember, a lender can always challenge existing case law and even the policy behind Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes. Future changes to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and/or court decisions may provide additional guidance on refinanced purchase money loans and whether they retain their purchase money characteristic.
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 as part of the foreclosure. However, for several reasons, judicial foreclosures on residential property in Arizona are relatively rare — most lenders foreclose via a trustee’s sale. Moreover, if the loan is a NPM loan, a lender could elect to sue a borrower on the note and skip the foreclosure process altogether, or sue on the note, get a judgment and then proceed to foreclosure. Remember, only lenders that made PM loans on qualifying residential property are prevented from seeking a deficiency or suing the borrower on the note.
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.
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, Arizona’s Supreme Court has held that the lender can NOT sue the borrower on the note following the foreclosure; if the loan was a NPM loan, the junior lender CAN sue the borrower before or after the senior lender’s foreclosure.
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, although there are lenders and lender counsel arguing that short sales should not get anti-deficiency protections despite Arizona’s strong policies underlying these consumer protection laws. 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. A borrower would be wise to continue to maintain its property up until the day it is sold.
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!
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. Every borrower and owner should consult independent legal counsel to review their situation and evaluate their risks and issues. Any opinions expressed herein are based on the author’s interpretation of existing law, anti-deficiency policies and practical experiences working in the area. However, the facts of each case can be different and different facts can result in different outcomes. Moreover, the law can change and courts will continue to shape the interpretation of statutes addressing these and related issues.
UPDATE ON ARIZONA’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY STATUTE
The Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed into law on November 23, 2009, Senate Bill 1004 which returns Arizona’s trustee’s sale statute anti-deficiency clause to its form prior to passage of Senate Bill 1271. The Bill includes a retroactivity clause, making the change retroactive to September 30, 2009, the day SB 1271 had gone into effect, and a statement of legislative intent confirming that the intent of the change is to return the law to its status before SB 1271. The Bill also includes an emergency clause, meaning it goes into effect immediately (as opposed to there being a 90 day waiting period as there was with House Bill 2008).
You can read the bill at the following link:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/4s/bills/sb1004s.pdf
The real estate industry and bankers are intending to continue work on an amendment to the law that would carve out certain speculative builders from anti-deficiency protections, but otherwise would leave existing protections in place.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC, Attorneys at Law
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 . . .
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