The question keeps coming up:  What is the deficiency liability of an individual involved in a short sale?

In the current real estate market, short sales are becoming more prevalent as defaulting borrowers attempt to avoid a foreclosure on their property. The risk is whether a borrower after completing a short sale and receiving approval from the lender(s) would then become liable for any deficiency arising out of the difference between the principal amount owed on the mortgage(s) secured by the property and the amount the sale price agreed to during the short sale.

The short answer (in California at least) is that given the current statutory framework and case law available on this issue it is unclear whether there is any liability. California has three interconnected laws that govern lender recourse:  1) the Security First Rule; 2) the Single Action Rule; and 3) the Acquisition Loan Rule. These all limit the ability of a lender to go after a borrower for a deficiency following a foreclosure.  The language of each statute itself is broad enough that arguable they will preclude deficiency liability after a short sale (ie: the lender cannot simply waive the Security First Rule by releasing their security and then suing on the remaining debt).

Lenders have been scrambling to find a way around these Rules and create some recourse against borrowers following a voluntary short sale.  A short sale is a contract between the lender(s), seller/borrower, and buyer. In the contract, the lender is essentially agreeing to compromise their position in order to avoid a foreclosure. The lender is getting something of value in return for their agreement to the short sale. Likewise, the seller/borrower is getting something by way of release from deficiency debt. If the lender were to attempt to pursue a deficiency, against the borrower/seller then the contract likely fails for lack of consideration. Essentially, the borrower/seller in that situation got nothing of value for their participation in the short sale contract.  Whether less credit damage is consideration enough is very questionable.

Taking this to the last step in the analysis, brings us to the theory of accord and satisfaction. Which is a term of art that simply states that when one settles their rights for value and receives that value, then they have compromised their claim and can not pursue it any longer. By agreeing to contract for the short sale, the lender(s) is essentially stating that they are willing to take less in the short sale process to avoid the foreclosure process. Thereby precluding the lender from asserting additional claims for deficiency after the settlement process.

What has been happening with frequency lately, is that some lenders (such as BofA) are requiring borrowers/sellers to sign a document stating that the borrower will remain liable for the deficiency as a condition to the lender consenting to the short sale. The lender(s) are trying to contract around the anti-deficiency statutes prohibitions. While it is permissible for parties to contract around statutory obligations there is not any known reported case law on this particular issue where there is no real benefit to the seller/borrower… especially when it the contract increases the lender’s benefits. Certainly, it seems that by requiring the borrower/seller to sign such a document, there is a lack of consideration as discussed above. Thereby possibly nullifying the documents effect. However, there is no case law on this topic.

The bottom-line reality is if you are confronted with one of these documents, you should seek legal counsel regarding the terms of the particular agreement before executing the document, as you very well could be contracting away anti-deficiency protection and more than likely exposing yourself to costly litigation.