Everyday we’re meeting with property owners who can’t get a loan modification and are deciding whether to attempt a short sale or just let the property go to foreclosure.  For more than 90%, a short sale is the best solution because it causes less credit damage, provides negotiation of recourse liability (especially important with multiple lenders), and avoids the potential future career damage of having a “foreclosure” on your record. Indeed, having at least attempted a short sale demonstrates a cooperation that may speed up the willingness of future creditors to provide a new loan.  But short sale is not always for everyone.

For the past three years, most people struggling with upside-down loans were those who bought their homes in the early to mid-2000’s with teaser loans such as negative adjustable, or pay-option ARMS which allowed them to qualify for the loans based upon “stated income” and a starting interest rate that virtually guaranteed a loan.  But then, as the teaser rates ended and interest adjusted, borrowers could no longer afford the payments.  For most of these borrowers, short sales work well because they don’t have any substantial assets and, unless they refinanced, they may have no deficiency liability (at least in CA). 

But now the profile of the upside-down owner is changing.  Today’s troubled owner is more likely to have a decent loan but they’ve lost their job or otherwise been impacted by the recession.  These owners may have lots of other assets but they can’t afford to keep paying for the negative cash-flow on the over-encumbered second home or rental property.  In California, these loans generally have deficiency recourse and, if a lender pursued a deficiency judgment, they could reasonably collect some or all of the deficiency from the borrower.  If the borrower attempted a short sale, they would have to disclose their assets as a part of the hardship package and, in doing so, they would be letting the lender know: 1) they have assets to contribute to payoff a short sale deficiency; and 2) if the short sale fails, they would be a good candidate for a “judicial foreclosure” which would allow a lender to get a deficiency judgment.  Even though that process could take over 2 years, the collectability could make it worthwhile for the lender to pursue.

Faced with this reality, it can be better for an otherwise solvent borrower to let the property go to foreclosure and, by not disclosing assets, have a better chance of avoiding the liability. In California, most lenders will foreclose through “non-judicial foreclosure” (also called Trustee Sale) because it is both cheap and fast but they give up any right to deficiency judgment.  Without knowledge that a borrower has other assets, the lender is most likely to take this path instead of the long, expensive, and generally non-productive judicial foreclosure route.  So, strategically, for the solvent but upside-down borrower, it may be better to walk away than short sale.

Of course, everyone’s situation is unique and there is no single best solution. The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Determining what to do involves consideration of judgment risk, tax factors, and credit and career impacts as well as the type of property and number of loans involved.  If you are considering default on your loans, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options. 

If you have specific questions about your liability in California or about short sales, foreclosure, or any legal issues, feel free to contact us at sjbeede@bpelaw.com.  We offer a $200 flat fee consultation to evaluate your liabilities and strategize a resolution. This can be done in person or by phone. If interested, please call us at 916-966-2260.

Every upside-down property owner is aware of the risk of a lender seeking a deficiency judgment for any amount of the loan that remains unpaid after short sale or foreclosure. Depending upon the laws of the state where the property is located, they may or may have any such right.  This issue of “recourse” is the first thing that I, as a real estate attorney, look at when advising borrowers and is the #1 reason that short sales fail (learn more in previous blogs).  But lately the question has been arising about whether a Mortgage Insurance Company has recourse if they pay-off a deficiency.

Private Mortgage Insurance (generally called PMI) is typically required by a lender anytime you borrow more than 80% of the purchase value of the property being acquired. In essence, you buy an insurance policy to protect the lender from the increased risk of loss with a higher loan-to-value ratio.  So you pay and the lender is the beneficiary. Here’s where it gets tricky.  An insurance policy is a contract between you and the insurance company for the benefit of a beneficiary. Like any agreement, the rights of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract and the laws of the State.  You pay for the policy in order to get the benefit of the lender giving you the loan… not for the benefit of avoiding a deficiency if there is a default (although this may be a reasonable belief if it is even considered at the time of the loan).  Thus, the policy may protect the lender from a deficiency and protect you from the lender’s claims but the policy may also provide that you must reimburse the insurer for any such payouts.  This is similar to your auto insurance which may pay a damaged third party for injuries suffered in an accident which you caused. The policy pays the injured party and you may have to reimburse the insurer for all or a part of what they pay out.  Again, the language of the insurance contract governs the rights of the parties.

But in the upside-down homeowner situation there are additional confusing issues. First, there must be an actual deficiency between the amount owed and the amount the lender receives.  If the lender has no recourse, they’ll generally give you a 1099 from which you may be liable for debt forgiveness tax.  But, if the debt has been forgiven, how can the PMI insurer claim recourse?  Second, since the insurer is communicating with the lender and not you, how can they hold you liable for a claim of which you had no knowledge and no input?  Third, since the only real purpose of the PMI is to insure injury resulting from a default by the borrower, then - unlike the auto accident - it is the default that is being insured, not obtaining the loan and therefore there should not be any recourse right for the insurer.

As of this point is time, we are not aware of any cases in which insurance companies have actually filed lawsuits against borrowers seeking PMI recourse. Such cases may be going on at the local Court level and have not reached the visibility (and legal authority) that only arises from an appeal after a Judgment to a Court of Appeals.  Given that a breach of contract claim such as failing to reimburse an insurer must be brought within a certain period of time after the breach occurs (such as 4 years in California), we may wait a long time before there is any certainty how Courts will treat such claims.  Further, if and when those cases are brought, there may be a great difference in rulings by different courts. It is the appeals process that starts to bring uniformity to decisions.

So the short answer to whether a Mortgage Insurer can get a Deficiency Judgment is “maybe”.  However, as set forth above, if any such suits are brought there many defenses that borrowers can argue to protect themselves. Even more effective may be the reluctance of judges and juries to further punish upside-down borrowers especially when the lenders (that arguably created this problem) get made whole.

If you have specific questions about your loans, liability, foreclosure, or any legal issue, feel free to contact me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or call us at (916) 966-2260 for a phone or personal appointment.  We offer a $200 flat fee attorney consultation to enable you to evaluate your judgment and tax risks and to plan a strategy to minimize or even avoid them.  Need help Coping with an Upside Down Loan? Checkout Steve’s audio-seminar and e-book at: http://www.stevebeede.com/copingwithanupsidedownmortgage/.  

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.