marc mccain
BORROWER’S 1, LENDER’S 0
In a recent case handled by local business and real estate attorney Lance Davidson, a borrower prevailed in a lawsuit brought by the borrower’s lender seeking a deficiency after the borrower sold the home at a short sale. In the lender’s approval letter, the lender included a clause that stated it reserved their rights to pursue a deficiency following the short sale. In a Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Davidson convinced the court that such an action was not appropriate under Arizona law and was awarded attorney’s fees. The lender did not appeal the decision, thereby ending the ordeal for the borrower, much to their delight.
This case highlights the hot topic in the Arizona real estate market regarding Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and their application to short sales. While some counsel may argue otherwise, the apparent predominant view is that short sales will get anti-deficiency protection provided the anti-deficiency requirements are otherwise met and provided the facts do not present the lender with a solid argument otherwise (such as an express waiver of anti-deficiency protection). However, certain issues in this area remain unresolved under Arizona law and aggressive bank counsel argue that short sales get no protection absent an express release by the lender as part of the short sale approval. Given the number of short sales in Arizona, this issue is almost certain to be heard in Arizona courts over the coming years.
Marc McCain, Esq.
Disclaimer: nothing in this article or site is intended to be, nor should it be considered, legal advice. Every situation can present unique facts or circumstances that must be analyzed. An attorney-client relationship exists only after a client has a signed fee agreement with McCain&Bursh, PLC.
TRENDS IN ARIZONA SHORT SALES AND ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAW
I recently attended a seminar that provided very interesting insight into the minds of lenders and why they continue to press rights against borrowers in certain contexts. Below is a summary of issues that lenders and their counsel believe are unsettled in Arizona, despite the strong policies behind Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes as discussed in several reported Arizona cases:
1. Refinances of an original purchase money mortgage where no additional money is distributed to the borrower. Lenders are arguing that no Arizona case clearly addresses whether a refinance of a purchase money mortgage, especially from a new lender, retains its purchase money character. Lenders point to cases from other states that hold a loan loses its purchase money character when refinanced. Of course, even if a loan is non-purchase money, if the trust property is 2.5 acres or less, has been utilized as a dwelling and the lender actually conducts a trustee’s sale, then the lender will be barred from seeking a deficiency since the trustee’s sale statute does not require the loan to be purchase money in order for the borrower to get anti-deficiency treatment. However, for junior loans that are refi’s of prior purchase money loans, lenders could conceivably make this argument and sue a borrower under the Baker Court’s rational (i.e., if a loan is non-purchase money, the lender can sue the borrower on the note). From a borrower perspective, if Arizona courts were to accept this lender argument, consider the practical effect. Many borrowers took advantage of cheap loans over the past decade and refinanced their initial purchase money loans. If all of these borrowers were suddenly deemed to lose purchase money protection, the potential impact on Arizona consumers and the Arizona economy would be huge. Thousands of borrowers would suddenly be subject to potential lawsuits and deficiency actions. Moreover, given the Beauvais decision, coupled with the policy behind Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes and the reasoning in the Baker decision, I find it hard to believe an Arizona court would strip borrowers of purchase money protection in this context, although nothing is impossible. As I remind clients, anyone can be sued at any time, for any reason. For this reason, an amendment to Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws would provide great clarity on this and other issues.
2. Short sales do not get anti-deficiency treatment since they are voluntary transactions that are not in the foreclosure context. Although consumer counsel like myself could not disagree more, if lenders want to make this argument in a court of law, they can, and a borrower must defend the lawsuit or face a possible default judgment. Moreover, litigation is costly, even if you have the better argument. So, if a lender were to sue a borrower for a deficiency following a short sale, a borrower must make a difficult decision as to how to spend its resources – fighting the lender, attempting to settle, or perhaps seeking bankruptcy protection. As a result, I will continue to stress that it is imperative to seek a lender’s express written waiver or release of any deficiency rights in a short sale. If a lender is unwilling to give such a release, then a borrower must carefully analyze its risks and whether it should go through with a short sale. Moreover, since a lender typically requires a borrower to submit financial information as part of the short sale process, a borrower must contemplate the risk of disclosing its assets to a lender and having that information used against it in subsequent collection efforts (whether after a short sale, or if a short sale is not consummated, in a deficiency action or suit on a note following a foreclosure).
3. Construction loans on residential lots can not get anti-deficiency protection (at least not under the judicial foreclosure statute) because the loan was not made on a single 1 or 2-family dwelling, even if the dwelling is subsequently constructed and utilized as a dwelling. Lenders may take the position that a construction loan for a new residence on 2.5 acres or less should not get anti-deficiency protection because the statutes should be interpreted to mean that the dwelling existed and was in use at the time the loan was made. This reasoning seems to runs contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in the Mid-Kansas case. Moreover, if a trustee’s sale is actually held, the clear statutory language of 33-814(G) should prevent the lender from seeking a deficiency where the 1 or 2-family dwelling is complete and has been utilized. However, if lenders want to push the issue, like noted above, they can, and a borrower will have to weigh its options and their respective costs and risks.
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.
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC
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.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SHORT SALES AND DEFICENCIES IN ARIZONA
Rarely will a consumer find so much contradicting, confusing and downright incorrect information on a legal topic as they currently do when it comes to short sales and related issues. Rarely heard of just 2-3 years ago, short sales now make up a significant majority of current MLS listings in the metro Phoenix market and the trend doesn’t seem to be changing any time soon. Agents, consumers and other professionals are scrambling to get up to speed on the process, strategies and legal issues surrounding short sales. From a legal perspective, there are three (3) main issues I discuss with clients who may be considering a short sale (or other loan workout for that matter): (1) deficiency issues, (2) credit issues, and (3) cancellation of debt income issues.
With respect to issue #1 – deficiencies, short sales present interesting issues and possible outcomes. Arizona has two anti-deficiency statutes that act to prevent a lender from collecting on a deficiency following a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure on certain residential property situated on 2.5 acres or less. Because these statutes deal with foreclosures, many real estate professionals, including attorneys, take the position that Arizona’s anti-deficiencies have no application to short sales. This is not entirely true given several Court decisions that restrict a lender’s right to waive its security and sue on its note. While a short sale can result in a deficiency situation where a foreclosure on the same property would not (for instance, without a lender’s agreement to not seek a deficiency, a short sale involving a non-purchase money loan on qualifying property will not extinguish a borrower’s liability for a deficiency, while a foreclosure by the same lender at a non-judicial trustee’s sale will result in the lender being barred from seeking a deficiency), for many loans (specifically, purchase money loans on qualifying property), a short sale should not result in a deficiency for a borrower. However, without a lender’s express waiver of its right to seek a deficiency, a Borrower must consider why it is attempting to do a short sale and if it is worth the risk that a lender and its counsel will try to sue for a deficiency based on what they may feel are unresolved issues in Arizona law.
Notwithstanding Arizona’s relatively broad anti-deficiency protections afforded to purchase money loans on qualifying property, lenders continue to misrepresent their rights and borrowers’ liabilities in short sale transactions. Lenders continue to demand cash contributions from borrowers to approve short sales even though they would have no right to seek a deficiency if they foreclosed on the property. Borrowers and their real estate agents should never engage in short sale negotiations without knowing exactly what rights and obligations a lender and borrower have under the loan and any particular workout scenario.
For a more detailed analysis of Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and their applicability to short sale transactions, see my letter to the Editor of Maricopa Lawyer attached.
letter-to-the-editor-of-maricopa-lawyer
Marc McCain, Attorney at Law
McCain & Bursh, PLC
(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.
SHORT SALE TIPS FOR ARIZONA RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
1. Know what leverage you have, if any. If Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes apply to your loan(s), use this fact to reject any lender demand for a seller/borrower contribution at close of escrow. Most junior lenders will ask for a contribution from the borrower, sometimes a significant one. If the loan is covered by Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws, the lender would be barred from seeking a deficiency if the home goes to foreclosure. A savvy borrower or his short sale negotiator will use this fact as leverage to get an approval without a borrower contribution, or at least not a significant one. Of course, each loan can be different, so know the law and how it affects each of your loans on a property before the short sale process begins.
2. Always ask for the lender’s express release of liability as a condition to the short sale – even if your loan(s) would be covered by Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws. The short sale proceeds should be taken by the lender as full satisfaction of all indebtedness under the loan(s). Attempt to get this in writing from each lender. If the lender is unwilling to provide such an express release, understand what liability you may have as a borrower following the short sale before you agree to the sale. In some cases, Arizona law prohibits a lender from waiving its security and suing a borrower on its note. As a result, if a lender in such a case releases its security in a short sale, a strong argument exists that Arizona law should prevent the lender from seeking any recourse against the borrower following the short sale. However, lenders and their counsel may have a different view on the topic and could elect to sue (or threaten) if they want to press the issue, forcing a borrower to defend or consider options.
3. Understand the process and information the lender will require for a short sale before starting the process. Nearly all lenders require a borrower to submit current financial information – bank statements, tax returns, W-2’s, company profit and loss statements, etc. In addition, lenders typically require a borrower to establish a hardship as a condition to approving a short sale. What constitutes a hardship can vary from lender to lender, and how a borrower portrays the hardship can make a difference. If a borrower may be liable for a deficiency following a short sale, that borrower may want to think twice about providing a lender with a snapshot of its current financial condition. Since a borrower must accurately disclose its income and financial condition, doing so may provide a lender the information it needs to ask for a larger contribution, pursue any deficiency rights following a short sale, or in an action on the note (if available).
4. Use a skilled, experienced negotiator to process your short sale. The short sale process can be lengthy, time consuming and frustrating. Without help from an experienced real estate agent and/or attorney, the process can be overwhelming for many borrowers. Despite the difficulties, if a short sale is right for you, don’t give up if met with initial resistance or delay from your lender and don’t necessarily blame your negotiator. Even the best real estate agents and attorneys run into unreasonable lenders and their legion of inexperienced and uncaring loss mitigation representatives.
5. Know what you are agreeing to in the short sale process and approval. The standard ARR Short Sale Listing Agreement and Short Sale Addendum require a seller to provide all information requested by a lender in the short sale application process. For reasons noted above, some borrowers may not want to agree up front to provide all information a lender requests. Moreover, the Short Sale Addendum requires the seller to work in earnest to get the short sale approved. As a result, a seller should not enter into a short sale contract unless it truly intends on seeking its lender’s approval and consummating the sale.
6. Read and understand your lender’s approval terms. Most lenders require a seller to sign and return the short sale approval or agreement. The approval conditions and agreements used by lenders vary widely. Some lenders are silent on deficiency issues, others attempt to get borrowers to agree that they will be liable for a deficiency following a short sale, even in instances where such an agreement may be contrary to Arizona law and its anti-deficiency provisions. Some approvals require a borrower to sign an unsecured promissory note. Whatever the conditions, a borrower must understand what potential obligations and liabilities it is taking on in the lender’s short sale agreement and related documents.
7. Stay apprised of changes in the law and short sale programs. Commencing on April, 5 2010, the Federal Government’s Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives program will implement changes to short sale and deed in lieu workouts for participating lenders and loans. Among the many requirements of the program, a lender will not be able to seek a deficiency following a qualifying short sale or deed in lieu. Moreover, many cases will be tried in Arizona’s courts over the coming months that may further shape Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws and whether certain loans should get anti-deficiency protection.
8. Understand what tax liabilities may result from a short sale. If a deficiency is not permitted or if a lender writes off any loss on a short sale, the lender should issue a 1099 C to the borrower to report the amount of the cancelled debt. Unless the borrower falls under a recognized exception to cancellation of debt income, a borrower must recognize the income and pay and associated tax liability. A prudent borrower will always understand the probable tax impact of a short sale (or other workout) before the transaction is consummated.
Marc McCain
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 . . .
BANKS NOT GIVING UP JUST YET ON AZ’S ANTI-DEFICIENCY LAWS
Investors and second home owners in Arizona should NOT rest easy on the heels of the legislature’s recent repeal of Senate Bill 1271. Recognizing bad law (SB 1271) and bad policy behind it, not to mention the certain backlash from consumers, one might have thought banks would take their defeat in stride and use their resources to work with borrowers to reduce Arizona’s unprecedented foreclosure rate. Unfortunately, the banking industry does not know how to take it lying down. Accordingly to Tom Farley, CEO of the AAR, local banking associations have rounded up a team of overpriced lawyers and have threatened to file a lawsuit challenging the repeal of Senate Bill 1271 unless they get their way with legislation that would change Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute(s) and the protections they bring to Arizona homeowners following a foreclosure or short sale.
My suggestion to Arizona’s homeowners, realtors and lawmakers: don’t let the banks push bad law and bad policy down your throat without taking them to task. Write your legislators – go to www.azleg.gov and make your voice known. Write your local bank president and tell them where your dollars will go if they move forward with their fight on this issue. Ask them if they received TARP or other subsidies on certain loans. Ask them if they are modifying bad loans or approving sensible short sale transactions. Ask them if they played any role in the current real estate mess in Arizona? Did they make money off risky loans based on shoddy underwriting standards? Ask them what they are doing to get this economy moving again – are they lending based on sound standards, will they lend more if they get their way with Senate Bill 1271?
Marc McCain, Esq.
McCain & Bursh, PLC
(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