loan workout
Arizona Senate Bill 1271 is Still the Law — But For How Long?
In light of the Banks’ recent lawsuit against the Governor attempting to prevent the repeal of Senate Bill 1271 from taking effect on or about November 24, 2009, it is important to understand the status of current Arizona law. To be technically correct, existing law INCLUDES the provisions of Senate Bill 1271, the bill that modified Arizona’s anti-deficiency provisions in the trustee’s sale statute – A.R.S. Section 33-814(G). The changes to A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) require that the trustor utilized the property as a single-one or single-two family dwelling for at least 6 consecutive months and also that a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the property.
However, House Bill 2008, recently passed by our legislature and signed by Gov. Brewer, repeals Senate Bill 1271 and the repeal is retroactive to September 29, 2009, the day before Senate Bill 1271 became law. Thus, the legal community has been operating under the premise that, although Senate Bill 1271 is technically the law from September 30, 2009 until the date HB 2008 takes effect, it will never be applied since HB 2008 makes the repeal retroactive to September 29, 2009 as though A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) were never changed. Now that the banks have sued the Governor, this premise, and the outcome of this power struggle, is in doubt.
The expectation from many in the legal community is that HB 2008 will take effect as scheduled on or about November 24, 2009 (90 days after teh end of the last special legislative session), and thus, Senate Bill 1271 will be repealed and A.R.S. Section 33-814(G) will be applied by courts as though it never changed. However, the repeal could be only temporary. Banking lobbyists are hard at work at the State Capitol trying to push a version of Senate Bill 1271 down the proverbial throats of our Governor and Legislators, with the pending lawsuit serving as leverage for their demands.
Given the uncertainty surrounding this very important issue of State law, I urge all of my clients and industry professionals to stay apprised of current developments and understand that the law in this area is in flux. What was “existing” or “current” law yesterday or today may not be the same tomorrow or next week, and how a court may interpret the mess created by this tug of war is anyone’s guess. As a result, a careful review of the law and application to a specific situation is critical before finalizing any short sale or permitting a home to go to foreclosure.
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