Ohio Practical Business Law : Columbus Ohio Business Lawyer & Attorney : Teri Rasmussen : Plunkett Cooney Law Firm : Commercial Law, Creditors, Business Formation : Columbus, Central Ohio

One of the questions I get asked a lot by my bank and creditor clients is "how long?"  How long til we can get the property back?  And those on the unfortunate receiving end of a foreclosure have the same sort of question - how long til I have to move out? - for different reasons.  Of course the answer is that it depends on so many different things and varies considerably from one county to the nextand one case to the next.  But that's not really the sort of answer anyone can run a bank on or make personal decisions with.  So here are some slightly more specific FAQ  

     1.     How long can I stay in my home if it is in foreclosure? 

If your residence is in foreclosure, it still belongs to you until the time it is sold at sheriff's sale and a confirmation entry is entered by the Court.  So, in plain language, the house is still yours until it is sold at sheriff's sale.  At that time, title to the property passes to the successful purcahser at the Sherriff's sale.  However, it will typically be at least a few more weeks (maybe even two or three months) as a practical matter before the confirmation entry is entered by the Court and the successful purchaser at the sheriff's sale receives the deed.  Because foreclosures are taking so long, in "real life", we are probably talking a year or more.

Double-edged sword is that you ARE still the owner as far as taking care of property......  Soooo,,. if you were thinking about just walking away from the whole mess because you're so far underwater equity-wise, it may not be quite that simple.  For a brief summary of the consequenses ogf this approach, visit Connie Carr's post entitled Mortgage Debt: The Consequences of Walking Away over at the Ohio Real Estate Blog.

     2.      How long will the foreclosure take? 

Talk about impossible questions to answer!  I like to start with the absolute MINIMUMS as far as time periods required if everything went exactly perfectly and there were absolutely positively no delays whatsoever.   Here's what has to happen to at least get to the point of getting a Decree in Foreclosure.  

• Defendants must actually be "served" with the foreclosure Complaint, i.e. they must either actually receive a copy of the Complaint or be deemed served through "publication by service" which means that it's been advertised in those tiny print LEGAL NOTICES part of a local newspaper.  Figure probably a week or two if no problems arise.
• Once "served", under Ohio law, a defendant has twenty-eight (28) days to respond to the Complaint.  So, OK, figure another month here.
• If the defendant does not respond after being served, the plaintiff lender can seek a "default" judgment.  To do this, the plaintiff lender must file a Motion for Default with the Court and wait for the Court to enter the Default Judgment.  This is obviously a HUGE wild card.  Some judges may enter judgment right away while others may just let things sit on their desk for months.  And there's really not all that much the plaintiff lender can do to move things along.  Let's just pencil in a couple of months here as being a not unreasonable period of time for this to happen, but with the understanding that this might well be much longer.
• If, on the other hand, a defendant does respond by filing an Answer to the foreclosure Complaint or there are other complications, the plaintiff lender will need to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.  A Motion for Summary Judgment is similar to a Motion for Default Judgment, but will need to address any arguments brought up by any defendants.  In addition, an Affidavit by an officer of the plaintiff lender will probably also be included setting forth the amount owed and explaining other relevant facts.  Once the Motion for Summary Judgment is filed, defendants have fourteen (14) days to respond and customarily, the plaintiff lender will have an additional seven (7) days to file a responsive Reply.  Here again, it's up to the judge as to when a decree in foreclosure will be entered and there really isn't that much a lender can do to hurry things up.  So, OK, figure 2-6 months here (although I will tell you that I currently have at least one case in which the Motion for Summary Judgment has been pending for more than a year)    

So, to recap, to get from the point the foreclosure Complaint is filed to actually having a judgment Decree in Foreclosure, it's going to be AT LEAST 3 1/2 months or so, and THAT IS SUPER OPTIMISTIC!!!  More likely, you are really looking at six to seven months or more and even that assumes that everything goes perfectly.  My anecdotal expereince is whether commercial or residential, a year or more is NOT an unusual amount of time for a foreclosure to take right now just to get to judgment, even if there is no spirited defense.

     3.     So the case FINALLY has reached that Judgment Decree in Foreclosure stage!  NOW how long til it finally gets auctioned at Sheriff's sale? 

Short answer: one heckuva lot longer than you might expect.  Again, I like to go with what i know to be the MINIMUM periods of time required and work out from there.  Here's what has to happen at this point:

• First off, under Ohio law, the property MUST be appraised by appraisers working for sheriff's office.  This is because, under Ohio law, the opening bid  at sheriff's sale for the proerty MUST be at least TWO-THIRDS of this appraised value.  How long this takes will depend A LOT on what county the case is in.  However, in general, let's figure about a month here.        
• Once the appraisal is done, the Sheriff's Office must set the date on which the property will be offered for sale.  This is where, as a practical matter, things really SLOOOW down.  As a practical matter, this is taking MONTHS right now.  By way of example, Franklin County currently already has sheriff's sales already scheduled through March.  In other words, right now, this step is taking 3 months or more.
• Once the sale date is set, it must be advertised for at least three consecutive weeks.  If there is a silver lining anywhere, it's here where the advertising can take place during the waiting period between the time the sale is set and when it actually occurs.  Also, unlike some surrounding states such as indiana, typically most Ohio counties have sales on a weekly basis.    
• If the sale is cancelled for any reason,even if it was something like a blizzard, the property must be readvertised.  There is no such thing as "postponing" a shriff's sale without the necessity of having to readvertise the property.  However, a new appraisal is not required.

So, to recap here, we're probably talking 3-4 months AT BEST!!!!

    4.     The Sheriff's sale has happened!!!! When do I get $$$?  When do I get the property??? 

OK, here the "good news" is that in Ohio - unlike certain other states -- the "equity of redemption" ends when the hammer falls at sheriff's sale and the Confirmation Entry gets entered by the Court.   The exact process will probably vary from one county to the next.  (On its website, the Franklin County, Ohio Sheriff's Office has helpfully posted an overall summary of its procedures following sale as well as an even  more specific  "What You need to Know as a Potential Third-Party Purchaser"  For other counties, visit the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association website.)  In general, here's the process: 

• Once the sheriff's sale is over, the confirmation entry is to be submitted within 30 days after the sale,
• Once the Order of Confirmation has been entered, the plaintiff's attorney is to submit the deed to the Sheriff's Office within seven (7) days thereafter
• The successful bidder generally has thirty (30) days following entry of the Order of Confirmation to pay the purchase price to the Sheriff's office, although the precise amount of time will be set forth in the Order of Sale.
• The Sheriff is supposed to record the deed within fourteen (14) days of payment, but that doesn't always happen.  Once the deed is recorded, it will be sent to the successful bidder. 
• The proceeds will be distributed as described in the order of Confirmation after the purchase price has been paid in.

So you're looking at another two or three months here.

     5.     Can I get control of the property sooner by getting a receiver appointed and how long will that take?

Yes, maybe. Appointment of receiver generally only makes sense in the context of commercial properties.  Most  commercial mortgages provide for the appointment of a receiver and especially if there are defaults other than  nonpayment, appointment of a receiver should not be especially difficult.  It is possible in certain cases to obtain appointment  of a receiver on an expedited basis, but the timing and the identity of the individual appointed is still a matter of discretion with the court.  Once the receiver is appointed, the receiver can collect the rents,  handle maintenance issues, and interface with tenants.  However, in non-emergency situations, it is sometimes difficult to obtain a quick hearing date on the Motion to appoint a receiver.  

    6.     What about a "deed in lieu"?  Can that speed things up?

Yes, it can.  However, a "deed in lieu" in which the borrower conveys the property over to the lender, usually in exchange for a release or limitation of liability, only really works if (A) the borrower wants to to do this; and (B) there are no other liens on the property.  If those two criteria are met, a deed in lieu (DIL in the biz) can happen very quickly, perhaps even in a month or less.    

     7.     So the bottom line is.....?

Any way you look at it, foreclosure in Ohio is a long process for either residential or commercial property.  Think at least a year before the property is auctioned at Sheriff's sale and another couple of months before it's finalluy done.  In a commercial foreclosure, getting a receiver appointed early in the case can make the long wait far more palatable to the foreclosing lender as it gives the lender control over the income being produced by the property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

And now, a cautionary tale about the importance of actually paying attention to what a promissory note and mortgage say.  In the recent case of National City Mortgage  Co., v, Richards. 182 Ohio App.3d 534, 2009-Ohio-2556 (10th App. Dist.), the Bank found out that failing to comply with the relatively simple provisions  in a note and mortgage concerning notice to be given a delinquent borrower was a costly mistake. 

REALLY COSTLY >>>>>> as in DISMISSAL of a FORECLOSURE

FACTS.  The facts here are numbingly similar to those in any number of other cases.  Ms. Richards, the borrower had a loan from the Bank secured by a mortgage on her property in Columbus - presumably her residence, although the decision doesn't really say.  Anyway, when Richards defaulted, the Bank apparently sent her a notice of default by certified mail only; no notice was sent by regular mail.  The certified mail receipt came back "unclaimed".

In December 2005, the Bank initiated a foreclosure action.  Richards, acting pro se, filed an answer in January 2006 indicating that she had made a payment of $3,329,70 consisting of the January payment, the past-due amount and other fees totaling, all as indicated by her December 2005 statement, and therefore was not in default.  The Bank responded by sending Richards a letter stating that, not counting the payments already made by Richards it would take payment of $6,838.09 -which included payment of attorneys' fees - to reinstate her loan.

Richards filed a second response to the foreclosure Complaint indicating she had sent additional funds exclusive of the attorney fees to the Bank to bring her account current and had sought a payment plan for the attorney fees.  The Bank then returned all of the payments sent by Richards since the commencement of the foreclosure.and sought summary judgment on its foreclosure complaint.  Several months later, while the case was still pending, the Bank [for some inexplicable reason as far as I can see] sent a "demand/acceleration letter" to the property address; the case doesn't say whether the letter was sent by regular or certified mail and it doesn't appear to have figured in the decision.

Richards alleged among other arguments that the Bank had failed to provide proper notice of default and opportunity for cure, thereby failing to satisfy a condition precedent to acceleration of the note and foreclosure of the mortgage securing the note.  The trial court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank.  The Court of Appeals REVERSED.... 

>>>>>>   Here's where everyone needs to pay attention!   >>>>>>

THE NOTICE PROVISIONS.  The promissory note had a relatively ordinary notice of default provision providing for a thirty day cure period:

If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and all the interest that i owe on that amount.  That date must be at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed to me or delivered by other means,

In addition, both the promissory note and mortgage had explicit provisions requiring notice to be given by first class mail.  The note said:

[A]ny notice that must be given to me under this Note will be given by delivering it or mailing it by first class mail to me at the Property Address above or at a different address if i give the Note Holder a notice of my different address.  

Similarly, the mortgage provided:

All notices given by Borrower or Lender in connection with this Security Instrument must be in writing.  Any notice to Borrower in connection with this Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower's notice address if sent by other means.

LESSON TO BE LEARNED >>>>  Most lenders have realized by now that in the current economic environment, courts are not exactly tending to be sympathetic to lenders failing to cross all their "t"s and dot ail their "i"s.  This is yet another reminder that ESPECIALLY  where it is easy to comply, it is most certainly in the lender's best interests to do so .... to the letter. 

It is easy enough to send a demand letter by both regular mail and certified mail; even if the certified mail comes back "unclaimed", the lender will get the benefit of the "mailbox' rule that the regular mail got through.  Fed. Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Doyle, (Oct. 9, 1998), 6th Dist. No. L-98-1010, 1998 WL 700663. 

And if your documents say first class mail, then make sure it at least gets done that way.  By the same token, if your documents provide for a cure period, make sure your demand letter incorporates the time period provided.

IN SHORT, READ YOUR LOAN DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU START THE FORECLOSURE AND DO WHAT THEY SAY.   

For those particularly "in" to this issue, the decision also provides several helpful drafting pointers about ways the Bank's attorneys could have put together a tighter better drafted Complaint that might have helped their cause somewhat with respect to certain procedural issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Suppose a foreclosing lender had to come up with the CASH for EVERY deposit required in foreclosure sales in which it was the foreclosing plaintiff and successful bidder at sheriff's sale.  It shouldn’t take long to realize that we are talking about a MESS OF DOLLARS here.  Could that cause a cash flow issue and maybe slow down the pace of foreclosures?  Well maybe. 

About a year ago, Ohio made several significant changes to its foreclosure law.  Then and probably even more now, foreclosures (particularly of the residential variety) were widely being perceived as increasingly serious epidemic.  And so various foreclosure mediation programs were born, backlogs legitimately produced delays, and courts in some areas of the state started instituting procedures such as referring every single foreclosure case to a magistrate which promised to slow the entire process down considerably. 

Now from a lender standpoint, none of this was good news.  But apparently, in the view of some, this wasn’t enough.  And so, in some courts now – primarily in northeast Ohio which has been hit hardest, additional measures have been taken to make foreclosure a more difficult process for lenders. 

I mentioned the other day that I’d made a trip down to a Franklin County, Ohio sheriff’s sale in a pending foreclosure case I am handling for a client.  And part of the reason I went myself was that it involved bidding for a junior lienholder in a situation in which we were anticipating contested bidding. Which squarely raised the question: could I credit bid on behalf of this junior lienholder or was my client going to have to come up with the full amount of the deposit typically paid by third party purchasers?

Now, you think you know things… and then you find out that well, maybe, you don’t or at least the whole world isn’t the way you thought – and if you’re anything like me, that starts to concern you at least a wee little bit ‘cuz now you start to worry ‘bout what you CAN rely upon.  And what I learned this week was that while fortunately here in Franklin County, the world of foreclosures and sheriff’s sales was indeed precisely as I thought, it’s a “whole ‘nother ball game”  elsewhere in Ohio.  

Specifically what I found out was that the concept of “credit bidding” whereby a lienholder did not have to come out of pocket so long as the amount of its bid was no more than the amount owed it was not quite so universal a truth as I had heretofore believed.  Here in Franklin County and Central Ohio, sanity – from the lender perspective – reigns.  First lienholders needing or wishing to bid in a property brought to sheriff’s sale in a foreclosure proceeding need only bring a much smaller specified amount to successfully “bid in” property.  In addition, junior lienholder (such as my client) are also not required to pay more than this.

In Cuyahoga County (i.e. Cleveland), it’s a whole different story.  There, NO ONE is allowed to credit bid AT ALL.  Local Rule 27 governing foreclosure sales requires a 10% deposit (based on the appraised value of the property being offered) to be made by the successful bidder at sheriff’s sale.  It also states: 

When the purchaser is the lien holder after the lien of costs, taxes and assessments, the Court  may order, if the lien holder or assignee is the successful bidder at sale, that the required deposit be waived and thar all costs, taxes and assessmenof ts be paid upon receipt of a statement from the Sheriff of Cuyahoga County

However, the Foreclosure Terms of Sales available on the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s website make it absolutely clear that NO WAIVERS willl be granted, stating "There shall be no waiver of Deposit for any Sheriff Sale.".

A similar procedure has also been adopted in Erie County.   In Lucas County (i.e. Toledo), however, lienholders are only reqired to come up with $1000 plus the amount of real estate taxes due.  And in Montgomery County, Local Rule 2.23 permits credit bidding for first lienholders, but not for jumior lienholders,  So I suppose the practice point here is to be sure to check the local rules before showing up at a sheriff's sale. 

Why is this happening?    it arises from the interpretation of revised Ohio Rev. Code 2327.02 which provides in reelvant part:

 If the property is sold under an order of sale or transferred under an order to transfer, the officer who conducted the sale or made the transfer of the property shall collect the recording fee and any associated costs to cover the recording from the purchaser or transferee at the time of the sale or transfer and, following confirmation of the sale or transfer and the payment of the balance due on the purchase price of the property, shall execute and record the deed conveying title to the property to the purchaser or transferee. For purposes of recording that deed, by placement of a bid or making a statement of interest by any party ultimately awarded the property, the purchaser or transferee thereby appoints the officer who makes the sale or is charged with executing and delivering the deed as agent for that purchaser or transferee for the sole purpose of accepting delivery of the deed

Not certain the statute actually forbids credit bidding?  Well, neither am I. Now, rationally and logically, here is what I can see.  If counties want a deposit to be made to cover real estate taxes, well O.K. maybe I can see that.  However, beyond that, when it comes to the first lienholder, it doesn't even make sense to require additional payments into the Court,  It doesn’t make sense because the lienholder is PAYING ITSELF at this point!! 

For junior lienholders, I suppose I can see some logic here, but as a practical matter , it still makes very little sense.  Junior lienholders in one case are likely to be seniore lienholders in another case so it is unlikely that there will be any actual problem with payment of these amounts at the time the deed is ready.  And not infrequently, given the delays experienced in completing the foreclosure process, the successful lender bidder will have already assigned its bid and sold the property to a third party in any event , thus complicating the financial accoounting for these transactions.       

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This morning I went down to the weekly Franklin County Sheriff's Sale to bid on a property for a client.  I don't get down there for this sort of thing that much anymore - paralegals and clients themselves tend to take the duty - but it was interesting to see both what was the same and what had changed from when I was the designated attendee years ago.

In the "old days", i.e. more than 20 years ago, sheriff's sales in foreclosures really did happen on the courthouse steps in some places.  Here in Franklin County, Ohio, sheriff's sales in foreclosures were done in the lobby of the Common Pleas Courthouse by a burly looking guy standing behind an enormous wooden podium (which is actually still there) and wielding a gavel.  It was noisy and necessarily a tad uncomfortable because it was strictly a standing only event with no seats.  And there really was a bit of a sense of drama as folks milled around waiting for the sale to begin.  And the actual fall of the gavel was a nice touch too.

Today, Franklin County sheriff's sales in foreclosure cases take place in a large nice quiet carpeted auditorium/room on the first floor of the courthouse with plenty of seats for everyone.  Three women - substantially less intimidating than I remember the guy doing it years ago - run the sales from a podium on a stage raised about 6 feet at the front of the room.  Then there are about a dozen table desks, well spaced in 3 rows, for the "regulars" who attend the event every week and may be bidding on multiple properties.  And for the rest of us, a couple of rows of reasonably comfortable chairs set up behind the special desks.  It is obviously a far more sensible arrangement, but at least to me, it somehow just doesn't quite seem as "official"  -- although of course it is.

Promptly at 9 AM every Friday (the time and day for sheriff's sales vary from county to county), the foreclosure sales begin.  First, all of the properties being withdrawn from sale, mostly because of bankruptcy filings but also possibly because they have been brought current or for some other reason, are read in alphabetical order by debtor.  Then each property is called in turn, again alphabetically by the principal defendant owner.  (Other counties may use a different order.)  Since my case involved a debtor defendant whose name started with "W", I was there for quite a while... and began to really appreciate the progress represented by the provision of those chairs.

So what happens, exactly?  Each sale is announced in the same way:

• Big Bank v. Jones at 123 Columbus Street,
• [Case  No.] 08-XXXX,
• Attorney Rasmussen,
• Appraised $XXX,XXX,
• Deposit $XX,XXX [in Franklin County and many other  Ohio counties, this is at least 10% of the appraised value, although the plaintiff lender can require more], 
• Parcel No. XXX-XXX-XXXX

And then, a brief description mentioning the subdivision or other identifying information is mentioned, followed by the words: 

Commonly known as 123 Columbus Street.  I need an Opening Bid of $XXX,XXX [here in Ohio this would be two-thirds of the Appraised Amount]    

At this juncture, bidding is open to everyone in attendance.    Sheriff's sales are open to the public.  It is not necessary to be an attorney, or even a paralegal, to bid.  Nor do you even have to be a resident of Ohio.  You do not have to register in advance, or even on the day of the sale,  to attend or bid.  You do, however, have to be there in person.  Eventually, sheriff's sales may carch up with technology, but for now there's no bidding by telephone or on-line and no streaming video of the sales as they happen. 

For most properties, there's not much interest.  Sometimes even the foreclosing plaintiff lender doesn't bid.  In these cases, the words "No Bid, No Sale "are intoned and the property will be reappraised at a lower value and offered for sale some subsequent Friday.   If, as often happens, the plaintiff lender makes the opening bid at the required minimum amount (and ocasionally for a bit more) and everyone else sits on their hands, the representative of the Sheriff's office simply says "Sold to the Plaintiff for $XX".

In the relatively rare situation in which there actually is some interest in the property being offered at foreclosure sale, bidding begins at the minimum bid amount, frequently kicked of by the plaintiff lender, and it goes from there.  There is no "auctioneer" in the sense of someone rattling on trying to coax higher bids as you might see in an ordinary auction.  Rather interested bidders simply speak up and the Sheriff's representative repeats the amount and pauses to see if anyone else wishes to place a higher bid.    If bidding gets bogged down, certain minimum increments may be imposed, but for the most part, bidding increases in the amounts desired by those bidding.  When it appears that no one wishes to place a higher bid, the iconic words "Going once, going twice, sold to... " are spoken, bringing the sale to an end.

At this point , the successful bidder must bring his properly completed Real Estate Judicial Sale Purchaser information Form and a Cashier's Check (no personal or company checks permitted except for lienholders) in the amount of the required deposit to the front of the room and hand it to the Sheriff's representative.  THIS MUST HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY - there is no waiting for the successful bidder to "go out to their car"  or over to the nearest bank branch to get the check - IMMEDIATE means NOW and if the deposit check isn't forthcoming or the paperwork is otherwise not in order for some reason, the property will be immediately resold right then and there!  (That actually happened once today although I don't know exactly what was wrong.) 

And then it's over.  No gavel now...  they just move on to the next property.  It's then up to the plaintiff lender's attorney to prepare a Confirmation Order within 3O days naming the successful bidder and specifying how the proceeds of sale are to be distributed in accordance with the applicable priority of the various lienholders.  The sheriff's deed conveying the real estate to the successful bidder and new owner must be prepared within 7 days after entry of the Confirmation Order and submitted to the Sheriff's office.  Sometimes it can then take quite a while after that before the deed actually gets recorded.  Once the Confirmation Order is entered by the Common Pleas Court, there is NO EQUITY OF REDEMPTION allowing the defendant to regain possession of the real property and the sale is final.

For more information about how Sheriff's sales are conducted here in Franklin County, Ohio, visit  the Franklin County Sheriff's website and click the "Civil Real Estate Sales" button on the left hand side of the page.   You can also find lists of properties to be sold at upcoming foreclosure sales, as well as the results of recently completed sales here - the results from today's sale were up by lunchtime.  Because Ohio's foreclosure law has recently changed, it may also be worthwhile to review the informational WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW AS A POTENTIAL THIRD PARTY PURCHASER material made available there.

All in all, a fairly interesting Friday morning.

For another person's account of the experience, visit A Trip to the Franklin County Sheriff's Weekly Real Estate Auction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, in a relatively unheralded decision (which didn't even rate an "official" summary by the Court's Public Information Office), the Ohio Supreme Court served notice that there's more than one way to look at certain aspects of the deepening foreclosure crisis.  In Wilborn v. Bank One Corp., 2009-Ohio-306 (hat tip to Justin Ristau for his summary in a Bricker & Eckler Creditor Rights & Bankruptcy E-Alert which called my attention to the case), the Court arguably departed a bit from established precedent to uphold an attorney fee shifting provision in the context of a residential mortgage reinstatement following the commencement of foreclosure proceedings.  Why?  Because the stability of the market demanded it.  But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

In my last post, I explained that generally speaking, everyone pays their own attorney fees in the United States, regardless of whether they wind up on the winning or losing side.  I also mentioned that one exception to this general rule was when the parties agreed between themselves that a particular party or parties was entitled to recover their attorney fees from the other side in the event they ultimately prevailed.  But that this sort of provision only really worked where both sides had relatively equal bargaining power.

Nearly all commercial loan documentation contain provisions obligating the borrower to pay the lender's attorney fees incurred in connection with the lender's enforcement of its rights under those documents.  Many consumer mortgage documents also contain such a provision.  However, in Ohio, up to now there have been several cases involving the enforceability of such provisions in the context of the enforcement of a debt -- and in foreclosure proceedings in particular -- which have generally found them to be against public policy and thus not enforceable.

What Wilborn Held.  What make Wilborn interesting is that, particularly in the current foreclosure crisis and overall difficult financial situation, it would have been VERY EASY for the Court to strike down the attorney fee shifting provisions.  While addressing a fairly unique fact pattern, the Court's naked capitalist reasoning and what it may portend for subsequent attorney fee shifting cases are worth examining. 

In Wilborn, the Ohio Supreme Court's syllabus states:

A provision in a residential mortgage contract requiring a defaulting borrower to pay a lender's reasonable attorney fees as a condition of terminating pending lender-initiated foreclosure proceedings on a defaulted loan and reinstating the loan is not contrary to Ohio statutory or decisonal law or against Ohio public policy 

Wilborn  Facts and Procedural History.  The case involved an appeal by 11 different plaintiffs in a class action (apparently a declaratory judgment action) challenging the enforceability of an attorney fee provision in a standarized residential mortgage.  After the lender had initiated foreclosure proceedings (but prior to the entry of a foreclosure judgment decrees), the plaintiffs had all entered into some sort of reinstatement of their defaulted mortgage.  In addition to bringing the defaulted mortgage current, the lender required the plaintiff borrowers to reimburse the lender for its attorneys fees and other collection costs.  The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that payment of attorney fees as a condition for reinstatement was permissible.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Reasoning.  The Ohio Supreme Court acknowleged that two very ancient cases - namely Leavans v. Ohio Natl. Bank, 50 Ohio St. 591 (1893) and Miller v. Kyle, 85 Ohio St. 186 (1911) - had long stood for the proposition that attorney fee provisions in connection with the enforcement of a debt obligation, particularly in foreclosure situations, were not enforceable.  It also recognized the holdings of Nottingdale Homeowners' Assn v. Darby, 33 Ohio St3d 32 (1987) and Worth v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 32 Ohio St3d 238 (1987)  to the effect that such provisons had to be the product of bargaining between parties of equal strength.

Now in the current economic climate, the plaintiffs-borrowers probably expected - and I certainly would not have been surprised  - the Ohio Supreme Court to apply these precedents easily and strike down the attorney fee provisons forcing poor defenseless folks on the verge of losing their homes to pay big bad banks for their legal costs in enforcing a mortgage that might even have been unfairly foisted upon the homeowner in the first place.  But that's not what happened. 

Not Against Public Policy

Instead, the Ohio Supreme Court first drew a distinction between foreclosure proceedings to enforce a mortgage and reinstatement.  It held that "reinstatement is not the enforcement of a debt obligation" and that consequently the public policy considerations of the ancient cases concenring "imposition of a penalty' were simply not relevant.  The Court explained:

A defaulting borrower is not entitled by law to have a mortgage loan reinstated.  Upon a borrower's default, a lender is entitled to initiate  foreclosure proceedings, to be paid in full, and to sever its relationship with the defaulting borrower.  A defaulting borrrower's right to reinstate the mortgage loan arises solely from the terms of the residential mortgage agreement between the parties.  Reinstatement occurs only when the defaulting borrower chooses reinstatement and consequently, chooses in the existing foreclosure proceeding to forgo those statutory protections arising from the foreclosure process.  The defaulting borrower's agreement to pay the lender's attorney fees incurred in connection with the foreclosure proceedings is a reasonable exchange for the right to require the lender to reinstate the defaulted mortgage loan and to forbear the lender's legal rights to foreclose, be presently paid in full, and sever the relationship with the defaulted borrower.

Thus, a mortgage reinstatement provison in a residential mortgage agreement creates no obligation on a defaulting borrower to pay a lender's attorney fees until the borrower exercises his or her choice to reinstate.  Thus the borrower's obligations to pay such fees does not arise solely as a consequence of the lender-initated foreclosure action.  instead, the obligation arises only upon the defaulting borrower's voluntary exercise of the contractual right to reinstate the mortgage loan, a right gained in exchange for the lender's surrender of the present right to foreclose.  

No Negative Implication of ORC 1301.21

The Ohio Supreme Court also found unpersuasive the borrowers' argument that the negative implication of Ohio Rev. Code 1301.21 - which is relatvely recent  (in the sense that it has become law during the course of my legal careeer)  and DOES allow attorney fee shifting provisons in larger commercial loans - was that the General Assembly did not intend to all such provisons in the consumer mortgage context.  Frankly, I thought this was a pretty good argument. but the Court simply put blinders on and said, well that's not what is says. 

No Contract of Adhesion - Equal Bargaining Power Exists

Perhaps even more surprising was the Ohio Supreme Court's choice to go "big picture" when considering the relative bargaining strength of the parties to a residential mortgage.  Instead of focusing on the obvious vast chasm in bargaining power between the individual homeowner and the lender, the Ohio Supreme Court instead chose to consider the entire business and commercial context in which the terms of the standarized mortgages were determined, launching into an extensive recitial of how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came to have standardized forms at all.  Thus, according to the Ohio Supreme Court:

although none of the Borrowers or Lenders in this case were involved, those who did participate in the process that created the uniform mortgage forms were virtual proxies for the consumers and lenders who would eventually use the product.  That process brought together many sophisticated parties with competing interests and significant bargaining power.  The reinstatement provison, including the payment of attorney fees incurred by the lender as a condition of reinstatement, was thus agreed to in a representative process of free and understanding negotiation between parties with equal bargaining power. 

Public Policy In Fact Demands Upholding Attorney Fee Shifting Provisions

In what must have seemed to the borrower-plaintiffs like adding insult to injury, the Ohio Supreme Court went on to conclude that not only did public policy not preclude enforcement of the attorney fee provisions- it in fact DEMANDED enforcement of such provisions.  As the Ohio Supreme Court saw it, weighing in the balance was nothing less than the stability of Ohio's mortgage business itself:

public policy strongly favors the use of these uniform mortgage forms to further Congress's stated purpose and to permit the trading of Ohio's conventional mortgages on the secondary market.  To declare some part of these forms unenforceable would make Ohio less competitive in the secondary mortgage market, thwarting the objectives of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabling legislation, denying lenders liquidity for their investment portfolios, and decreasing the capital available to borrowers for mortgages.  in light of the economic difficulties afflicting the national economy as of late, and particularly in the housing sector, our decision today also serves the public policy of this state by avoiding further destabilization,  

Bone to the Borrower

Almost as an afterthought, the Ohio Supreme Court threw borrowers a bone in a footnote to the effect that of course the amount of attorneys fees must still be "fair, just and reasonable as determined by the trial court upon full consideration of all the circumstances of the case." 

Some Thoughts and Implications.  While the gulf in bargaining power between consumer advocates and lenders is not nearly so wide as that between lender and consumer borrower, I'm not altogether convinced that characterizing the parties involved in hammering out the standardized mortgage forms as being of equal bargaining strength is all that accurate. 

In addition, while I "get" the distinction between foreclosure as a debt enforcement procedure and the "privilege" of reinstatement, I'm not convinced that such a distinction necessarily matters when it comes to public policy.  Personally, I've always felt that with consumer obligations such as auto loans or home mortgages, a slight presumption towards the consumer was not necessarily a bad thing.  My rationale is that, unlike business and commercial loans, in which someone has voluntarily decided to enter the business world in the hopes of making considerable money (and therefore needs to be willing to accept the risks of failure), home and auto loans are part of the fabric of everyday existence in America and are essentially unavoidable obligations.  As such, it is more appropriate for there to be protections for the borrower. 

Perhaps one of the ironic outcomes of this decision is that small commercial enterprises involved in commercial transactions with larger more powerful business partners may now actually have greater protection against an attorneys fee provision than the average consumer mortgage borrower.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a relatively unremarkable opinion that lenders, like any other plaintiff, have but two chances to get their pleadings right.  However, because I've just been posting about Ohio's foreclosure process, and the case involved an unusual - but not extraordinary - sequence of events which ultimately barred the lender from foreclosing on a deliquent mortgage loan, it can't hurt to remind everyone of the importance of proper preparation before - and after - a foreclosure complaint is filed.

In U.S. Bank National Association v. Guillotta, 2008-Ohio-6268 (the Court's Office of Public Information prepared this brief summary of the decision which in this case, probably actually is all you need to read), ruled 5-2 that a lender who had previously dismissed a foreclosure against a borrower twice before, apparently with no additional payments or other intervening action by the borrower occurring, could not file yet a third foreclosure action against the borrower.

Why the lender dismissed the previous foreclosures is a bit unclear - the opinion gives no details .  The sequence of events appears to have been the following:

• June 2003 mortgage note executed
• April 2004 first foreclosure instituted
• June 2004 first foreclosure dismissed
• September 2004 second foreclosure filed
• March 2005 second foreclosure dismissed
• October 2005 third foreclosure filed

Typically, under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 41(A), two unilateral voluntary dismissals of an action function as an adjudication on the merits and preclude the plaintiff from reinstituting suit on the claims embodied in the matter dismissed.   The lender tried to argue that each new missed payment gave rise to a new claim that would obviate res judicata claims. 

In contrast to the Tenth Appellate District which had previously rejected this sort of argument in EMC Mtge Corp. v, Jenkins, 164 Ohio App.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-5799, 842 N.E.2d 855,, the Stark County Court of Appeals actually held for the lender.  Certified to the Ohio Supreme Court was the issue:

Whether or not each missed payment under a promissory note and mortgage yields a new claim such that any successive actions on the same note and mortgage involve different claims and are thus exempt from the 'two-dismissal rule' contained in Civ. R. 41(A)(1).

The Decision.  Perhaps the most interesting part of the decision (which runs 17 pages, including a 5 page dissent by Justice O'Donnell) is the explicit narrowness of the holding.  The Ohio Supreme Court said:

The question certified to us defies an answer that can apply to all cases,  In this case we hold that each missed payment under the promissory note and mortgage did not give rise to a new claim....

This case is this case.  The significant facts here are that the underlying note and mortgage never changed, that upon the initial default the bank accelerated the payments owed and demanded the same prinicipal payment that it demanded in every complaint, that Gullotta never made another payment after the initial defauult, and that U.S. Bank never reinstated the loan. (emphasis supplied)

The Ohio Supreme Court took pains to point out that the "two dismissal' rule would not apply if the third claim was different from the earlier dismissed claims  and noted with approval that

there are examples from Ohio courts where successive foreclosure actions were indeed considered to be different claims.  In those cases, however, the underlying agreement had significantly changed or the mortgage had been reinstated following the earlier default.

Among the situations the Court found different from the one at hand was one in which a court had ruled against the mortgagee in the first case and forced it to reinstate the mortgage and the mortgagee was suing on a default on the reinstated mortgage.  in another case different acts of default were alleged  

With respect to the concern of the appellate court that enforcement of the "two dismissal" rule would chill negotiations between lenders and their deliquent borrowers, the Court observed:

We agree that negotiations between a mortgagee and mortgagor  to prevent an ultimate foreclosure is desirable for all the partie and for the state as a whole.  here , there is nothing in the record to indicate that there were any fruitful negotiations between the parties.  had there been any change as to the terms of the note or mrtgage, had any payments been credited, or had the loan been reinstated, then this case would concern a different set of operative facts, and res judicata would not be in play. 

 Practical BIZPOINTERS.  I don't think this case should cause any particular alarm for lenders.  At worst, it simply stands for the proposition that the lender ought to be sure it has actually gotten something befgore agreeing to dismiss a pending  foreclosure which is good business procedure in any event.  If a lender has in good faith entered into some sort of mortgage modifcation with a borrower after insittuting a foreclosure which causes the foreclosure to be dismissed, that is not this case and the lender probably has little to be concerned about. 

Perhaps the most important point is that  if there has been some sort of "arrangement' made with a deliquent borrower, then there IS a need for the lender to document that some sort of arrangement  has been made with the delinquent borrower to accomodate that borrower.  Documentation at least as formal as notes, and preferably at least a very short writen agreement should accompany a foreclosure dismissal, not just an oral conversation with the borrower to the effect that the loan will be brought current or the default otherwise cured.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In my last post, I highlighted a post by Mark Edwards at the Concurring Opinions blog focused on the plight of perhaps "blameless" tenants being evicted from property being foreclosed upon.  Although I think Mark has overstated the problem somewhat, I also believe he raises an excellent point of general application reminding us that there is a "human" consequence entailed in foreclosure that shouldn't just be ignored.

Keith Mullen of the Tough Times for Lenders blog who brought my attention to Mark's post has followed up with a post entitled "Foreclosure and the Residential Tenant: Some Helpful Hints".  In this post, Keith explains that commercial lenders should be more concerned about this topic because"the time will come when evicting a small business owner, or evicting families who occupy abandoned property (or a model home), or evicting laid-off workers occupying an abandoned warehouse ofr factory will gain the attention of the local media."  His suggestions, aimed at getting the property back "while managing media coverage":

• Realize that a broader spectrum of people and entities may need to be notified, i.e get the lender's community/governmental relations group involved so that they can "rach out to local community organizations and governmental agencies".
• As soon as you have the legal right to do so COMMUNICATE directly with the occupant(s) about the process and options available to them (e.g. local community and governmental resources)
• Consider entering into short-term leases both as a bridge to finding a replacement tenant and to allow occupants to find other housing
• Examine title records to determine any restrictions burdening the property.

Commercial lenders DO need to be concerned about the likely increasing complications involved in regaining possession of real property, but Keith's list seems to me to miss the point, both from the lender perspective of wanting the shortest least complicated route to clean possession and resale of the property and from the perspective of addressing the true underlying problem.  The challenge presented by the presence of perhaps unwanted occupants in foreclosed property is not as simple as just shoving the problem off to another division of the lender, but neither does it have to be a circus.   

Foreclosure, at least in Ohio, is not an especially swift process (click here and here for previous posts describing the procedures in Ohio). The best way to deal with the problem of squatters and/or other potentially unwanted occupants is to obtain the appointment of a receiver to manage the operation of the property and to sort out the occupancy issues during the pendency of the case.  Properly handled, any "media' issues should be able to be dealt with incrementally.  In addition, Keith's idea of utilizing short term leases to ameliorate any harshness entailed as a result of the forclosure process also seems like a useful approach.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a footnote to my last couple (click here and here) of posts about the Ohio foreclosure process, I thought it would be worthwhile to link to this recent post on "Evicting the Blameless Tenant"  by Mark Edwards of the Concurring Opinions blog which, especially for a legal blog post, has drawn substantial vociferous comments.  (Hat tip to the Tough Times for Lenders blog for their aptly titled "The Very Dark Side: Evicting tenants from foreclosed apartments" for drawing my attention to this post and pointing up the dichotomy between the lender/servicer view of apartment investment real estate as "project collateral" and the owner/investor (and certainly the tenant) perspective of an "apartment community").

This extremely well written post  poses the question of who as between a lender and a tenant should bear the risk of foreclosure.  It begins:

One of the most pernicious effects of the mortgage crisis has been the eviction of blameless tenants. Leases are usually terminated by foreclosure. Tenants who have never missed a rent payment, and who have no idea that their landlord has not been applying rent payments to their mortgage obligations, suddenly face eviction -- often with no notice.

 

It is difficult to overstate the trauma of the eviction. Tenants are not only turned out into the streets. Often their personal property is put on the curb or thrown into dumpsters. They don't just lose their homes -- they can lose everything they own. Passing rainstorms or scavengers can turn a lifetime's worth of work into nothing. Children in particular can be traumitized by seeing parents rendered powerless, by losing their possessions, and by the fear of the unknown. Violence is a constant threat.

While it is hard not to be moved by these words, it remains difficult for me to be believe that lenders routinely make the effort to boot out truly "blameless" tenants.   Although I can certainly conceive of situations in which tenants have dutifully paid their rent to an unscrupulous landlord who has filed to make mortgage payments, thus resulting in a foreclosure. it remains difficult for me to believe that the truly "blameless" tenant, whether residential or commercial, is all that frequently in danger of being thrown out on the street without warning.  For one thing, at least in Ohio, they would need to be named as defendants in the foreclosure for their rights to be definitively cut off.  

If the tenant is willing and able to continue paying rent at something close to a market rate, I just can't imagine that any purchaser in their right mind would want to disturb such a scenario.  In my experience, low vacancy properties with paying tenants are precisely the sort of commercial real estate valued most highly.  Why?  Because it's a turnkey operation and all the new owner has to do is notify the tenant(s) of a new address to which rent checks should be sent.  Why would any rational purchaser want to dump perfectly good tenants in favor of having to expend resources of time and money to go out and find others?

What I suspect is more likely the case is a situation in which the tenant has perhaps been a bit lax in consistently making timely rent payments - perhaps not so much deliquent that the property owner would be inclined to go to the trouble to get the tenant out, but enough to adversely affect the value of the property as a commercial investment.  In this scenario, it is not the "pure as the driven snow"  tenant we all feel for that we are really talking about.  

And now we are really back to the central issue in the larger foreclosure crisis - what to do about people who can no longer afford to remain in their homes and whether it matters whether we think they are at fault for allowing themselves to be in this situation.  Edwards (correctly in my view) recognizes that '[f]or the bank, the risk is that it is saddled with the responsibility of property management, and that it might be more difficult to sell the property".  He goes on to contend that the relative harm to the tenant of possible eviction and loss of personal property is higher and that

the absolute harm to society in general is greater [than the harm to the lender] when blameless tenants are evicted because of foreclosure, because eviction of blameless tenants has significant negative externalities for neighborhoods and cities. 

A number of the comments to the post (which are themselves interesting to read) seem to elicit an unusual amount of passion. and appear preccupied with allocating the moral supeiority high ground between the lender and tenant.  One more cogent comment by Nate Oman made the most sense to me and reflects my own questions as I read the post:

I am curious as to the underlying economics of these foreclosures. I can understand why the banks don't want to go into the property management business, but I don't see why avoiding that business requires evicting the tenants. Why can't the banks simply sell the properties along with the leases, which if the tenants really are blameless are a valuable income stream after all?

 

It seems to me that there are two possible issues. First, banks can't sell occupied property. Second, the leases lock in rental rates that no longer pay for the landlord. Niether of these seem intuitively plausible to me. The first possiblity is certainly belied by the routine sale of occupied commercial real estate. The second seems odd to me as well. If rent was somehow tied to the land lord's costs, then we would expect leases written at the height of the bubble to actually have very attractive terms given the current real estate market.

 

In short, I am confused as to exactly why this is happening. I suspect that there is some important part of the story that we are missing, and I'd like to understand what it is before signing off on any particular policy response.

While I certainly agree that commercial foreclosures could result in "collateral damage" to those actually living in the foreclosed property and that the"human element" of displaced residents raises issues that need to be addressed, I see these as social issues to be dealt with in a larger context.   Simply saying that because the lender has deeper pockets, it should have to deal with the problem (and in essence maintain the status quo of allowing continued occupancy of an apartment complex without regard to whether market rate rate is being paid by the third-party tenant)  seems too superficial (and frankly unfair) a solution to the issue. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

In my last post, I made some overall observations about Ohio's required judicial foreclosure procedures and explained the initial steps necessary to begin the foreclosure process.  In this post, I will explain what is involved, once the Complaint has been properly filed, in getting the property being foreclosed upon to sheriff's sale

One other caveat about this explanation is that it relates to foreclosures filed in STATE court as opposed to FEDERAL court.  While foreclosures are generally filed in state court, especially when receivership is involved, if diversity jursidiction can be met, foreclosures are now being filed somewhat more often in federal court.  in Ohio, this seems to happen most often in Cuyahoga County where the federal court route is perceived as a faster track option.

STEP THREE - Receivership Detour.  (Less than one day to several weeks after Complaint is filed.)  When commercial investment property is involved such as an office building, apartment complex, or multi-family property, the real property is generating revenues in the form of rental payments from tenants.  Lenders wanting to protect that stream of income and apply it to the defaulted loan will often seek appointment of a receiver to manage the property.  In addition, property securing defaulted loans has often been the subject of deferred maintenance and lenders are frequently concerned about deteriorating value of the property as a result.

Virtually all commercial loan mortgages securing a loan of any size have explicit provisions in them pursuant to which the mortgagor consents in advance to the appointment of a receiver in advance.  The following is a very typical such provision:

If an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, regardless of the adequacy of Lender’s security, without regard to Borrower’s solvency and without the necessity of giving prior notice (oral or written) to Borrower, Lender may apply to any court having jurisdiction for the appointment of receiver for the Mortgaged Property to take any or all the actions set forth in the preceding sentence. If Lender elects to seek the appointment of a receiver for the Mortgaged Property at any time after an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, Borrower, by its execution of this instrument, expressly consents to the appointment of such receiver, including the appointment of a receiver ex parte if permitted by applicable law.

Thus, commercial borrowers have by contract usually agreed to the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default. 

If for some reason, the mortgage lacks the requisite language consenting to appointment of a receiver,  Ohio Rev. Code 2735.01 permits appointment of a receiver when:

 A receiver may be appointed by ... the court of common pleas or a judge thereof in his county … in the following cases:            …

(B) In an action by a mortgagee, for the foreclosure of his mortgage and sale of the mortgaged property, when it appears that the mortgaged property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, or that the condition of the mortgage has not been performed, and the property is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt;

…

(F) In all other cases in which receivers have been appointed by the usages of equity.

Appointment of a receiver is also permissible under common law whenever it will prevent a wasting of assets. 

To expedite appointment of a receiver, a motion seeking appointment of a receiver is usually filed at the same time as the Complaint.  Technically, the identity of a receiver and the terms of his/her appointment are up to the Court, but generally (although this varies considerably from county to county and from judge to judge) the Court will follow the suggestion of the foreclosing creditor.  Once appointed, the party appointed as receiver will have to post a bond in an amount set by the Court.

While appointment of a receiver often makes sense with respect to income producing property, lenders must weigh those benefits against the additional costs associated with receivership such as the premium for a receiver's bond, fees and expenses of the receiver, and additional attorneys' fees.  

STEP FOUR - Obtaining Decree in Foreclosure.  (No less than 6 weeks, generally 16-24 weeks, sometimes much longer.)  Once the Complaint, and any applicable motion for a receiver, is filed, service of process must be obtained upon the defendants just as in any other lawsuit.  Generally, service is first sought by way of certified mail, then by regular ordinary first class U.S. mail, and then, if necessary, by appointment of a special process server or by advertising.  Obtaining good service on all defendants may take as little as a week or several months; generally this process only takes about a week or two.

Twenty-eight (28) days after being served, a defendant must file an answer to the Complaint.  If no answer ot other responsive pleading is filed, a default judgment will be entered against the defendant.  If a senior lienholder fails to answer, their lien can be eliminated without. any payment to the lienholder so it is important not to ignore a foreclosure initiated by another creditor.  If the foreclosure has been commenced by another creditor, a creditor has the option of  either (A) "crossclaiming" by setting forth its own foreclosure claims which can continue even if the first creditor resolves its differences with the delinquent borrower; or (B) simply filing an answer setting forth its interest in the property being foreclosed.

If one or more defendants answer, then a motion for summary judgment must be filed before a decree in  foreclosure can be obtained.  If factual issues exist, a full-blown trial may even be necessary. 

Unless and until a receiver has been appointed, the delinquent mortgagor may remain in possession of the real property throught the pendency of the foreclosure proceeding.

STEP FIVE - Setting a Date for Sheriff's Sale.  (No less than 6 weeks and often much longer.)  After the Court has entered the Decree in Foreclosure, whether by default judgment, grant of a summary judgment motion, or following trial on the merits, a separate Order of Sale must be entered directing the Sheriff to sell the subject property at auction,  Once the Decree in Foreclosure has been obtained, the Order of Sale is a formality and serves as the operational document to put the mechanics of the foreclosure sale procedure in motion.

Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2329.17 and Ohio Rev, Code 2329.18, the Sheriff must obtain an appraisal of the property from three (3) appraisers and file a copy of the appraisals with the Court.  The Sheriff handles the appraisal process on his own without intervention, consultation, or assistance from the foreclosing creditor.  The average of the appraisals establishes a floor below which the property cannot be sold; pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2329.20, the required MINIMUM BID is TWO-THIRDS of the APPRAISED VALUE based on the appraisal filed with the Court. 

Before the real property can be sold, Ohio Rev. Code 2329.26  requires that a notice of sale, showing time and place of sale, address of the property,and certain other required information,  must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the county beginning at least thrity (30) days before the date of sale.  The notice must be published at least once a week, on the same day of the week, for at least three weeks.  All defendants (other than those who failed to respond to the Complaint) must be served with the notice of sale at least seven days before the sale. 

STEP SIX - Selling the Property at Sheriff's Sale.  Once the date of sale has been obtained and proper notice has been sent out, there is little for anyone to do but wait.   While Ohio Rev. Code 2339.272 permits the Sheriff to hold an "open house" at which prospective purchasers may view the property being foreclosed upon, in my experience, that rarely, if ever, happens.  Commercial investment property has typically remained open to the public thoroughout  the foreclosure proceedings so in these cases, perhaps the need for an "open house" is relatively small.  However, in residential foreclosures, the borrower may have moved out and the actual condition of the property may not be readily apparent.   In both cases, the doctrine of caveat emptor, i.e."buyer beware" has never been more applicable.  There are NO warranties about the condition of the property being sold at foreclosure sale, the successful purchaser is buying "AS IS, with all faults". 

And, no, the foreclosing lender will not make arrangements for prospective bidders to get inside to see the property so don't bother even asking!

On the appointed date of sale, the Sheriff holds an auction sale of the property, often quite literally on the steps of the County Courthouse, with bidding beginning at two-thirds of the appraised value as determined by the Sheriff. Thus, if the real property has been appraised at $150,000, it cannot be sold at sheriff's sale for less than $100,000.   If no one is willing to purchase at the required minimum bid, the property will be re-appraised and re-noticed for sale. 

The highest bidder becomes the succcessful purchaser of the property and is awarded ownership of the property free and clear of all liens belonging to defendants named in the forecosure action.   Typically, the successful bidder is required to make an immediate down payment to the Sheriff of at least ten percent of the winning bid with the balance due within a specified time thereafter, usually 15-30 days.  The foreclosing creditor is permitted to bid at the sale and if it is the successful high bidder, it need only pay the amount, if any, by which its successful "credit bid" exceeds the amount owed to te foreclosing creditor.  In addition the successful bidder is permitted to assign its bid to another party on whatever terms are agreeable between it and its assignee upon the filing of approriate pleading to the effect with the Court.

For the sake of comparison, it may be helpful to visit a post on the Calculated Risk blog entitled "Foreclosure Sales and REO for UberNerds" (which contains a further useful link to a website purporting to contain summaries of foreclosure procedures in all 50 states) to see how the Ohio foreclosure sale process differs in several significant ways from that in several other states.

STEP SEVEN - Completing the Foreclosure Sale Process.  (Approximately 4-6 weeks).  Following completion of the foreclosure sale and payment in full of the purchase price by the successful bidder (or bid assignee), a Confirmation Order approving the sale and ordering delivery of the deed to the successful bidder must then be entered by the Court of Common Pleas.

Once the Confirmation Order is entered by the Court, the delinquent mortgagor has no further right of redemption.   Ohio Rev. Code 2923.31 and Ohio Rev. Code 2329.33.  This differs from many other states.  Prior to entry of the Confirmation Order, the mortgagor can redeem the property and in  essence undo the foreclosure sale by paying the amount of the judgment, plus interest on the purchase price at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit.

Again, every foreclosure is different and has its own timetable.  Local procedures vary considerably from county to county in Ohio and from judge to judge.  In addition, unique issues may arise which complicate the process.  However, in general, this is how a typical Ohio foreclosure unfolds when filed in state court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

When you're part of the Ohio outpost of a Michigan-based law firm, you get asked questions about Ohio law that you're so used to knowing, it sorta surprises you initially... until you stop and realize there's a whole heckuva lot about Michigan law that you don't know.  Anyway, recently I was asked about foreclosure procedure in Ohio and it occurred to me that in the current economic climate, this might be useful information for lots of folks. 

So, here's a two part post laying out a roadmap for a typical Ohio foreclosure.  Part One covers getting from declaring default to bringing foreclosure proceedings into full swing.  Part Two deals with obtaining the judgment decree in foreclosure once the case is filed, selling the property at sheriff's sale, and the adminstrative details involved in completing the process.  

And of course, my disclaimer: Every foreclosure is unique and presents its own problems and challenges so the following description of the process should be seen only as the most general outline and not relied upon as a detailed explanation of how every forclosure will proceed.  

Whether involved in a foreclosure from the creditor side or as the delinquent mortgagor, everyone always wants to know how long it will take.  And the short answer is longer than you might think.  The length of foreclosure proceedings in Ohio varies considerably from one county to the next and of course every case has its own pace,  However, in my experience, Ohio foreclosures rarely, if ever, take any less than at least six months and often take much longer, not infrequently more than a year.

Initial Observations.  In Ohio, foreclosure proceedings work much the same way regardless of whether the property involved is residential, i.e. someone's home, or commercial/investment.  The most significant difference is that a receiver is often appointed in cases involving commercial investment property to protect the value of the property and the flow of income from occupants in the property.  Because my law practice here in Central Ohio primarily involves representation of creditors with liens on commercial or investment properties, this post will focus primarily on how the process works in those situations.  However, most of what is said is equally applicable to the resdential side as well.  

Ohio, unlike many other states, does not offer creditors the option of a nonjudicial foreclosure, strict foreclosure or deed of sale.  (Click here for a very brief explanation of the difference between judicial and nonjudicial foreclosure.)  If a creditor has a mortgage or judgment lien on real property in Ohio and wishes to convert that lien to cash to pay off the borrower's debt, a lawsuit MUST be filed; there is NO summary procedure or shortcut.  The only out of court alternative available is a "deed-in'lieu" situation in which the borrower voluntarily conveys the real property to the creditor in full or partial satisfaction of the outstanding obligation.  (This could and probably will be the subject of a separate post.)

Because Ohio does enforce cognovit promissory notes evidencing commercial obligations which permit creditors to obtain money judgment immediately upon filing a Complaint, creditors are allowed to pursue post-judgment collection actions with respect to a debtor and its personal property assets during the pendency of the foreclosure proceeding if they have taken a cognovit judgment on the underlying monetary obligation.  Perhaps the most important point here is that a creditor can both take a cognovit judgment and pursue foreclosure simultaneously.

The fact that the titled owner of the real property may be a guarantor rather than a borrower does not affect foreclosure proceedings in any meaningful way.  Nor does the fact that the loan agreement, note, or mortgage is a "hypothecated" obligation or contains "exculpatory" provisions, both of which relieve the signatory of liability in excess of the value of the property pledged, change any aspect of the foreclosure proceedings other than eliminate any attempt to obtain money judgment.

While statutes and court rules governing foreclosure are uniform throughout Ohio, several counties have additional supplementary local rules, many of which fall in the "unwritten" variety, that must be followed by the foreclosing creditor.  Several counties, including Cuyahoga (think Cleveland) and Hamilton (think Cincinnati), use magistrates for foreclosure proceedings.  This can add time to the process because Magistrate Decisions must be adopted by Common Pleas judges before becoming effective.

STEP ONE - Establishing the Event of Default.    (Generally 1 -3 weeks, occasionally 4-5 weeks.) Obviously, an event of default, whether monetary or nonmonetary, must first occur before the foreclosure remedy is appropriate.  Typically, upon default, a demand letter of some sort will be sent to the borrower and any guarantors setting out the amount owed and referencing the occurrence of the default.  Nonmonetary default can include many things, a number of which will likely be spelled out in the applicable loan documents, and can include such things as default on obligations to other creditors, decrease or deterioration in the value of the real property, failure to maintain insurance, or filing of a mechanics' lien upon the real property. 

Before commencing a foreclosure action, lenders must take care to comply with any applicable cure period which allows the borrower to bring the obligation current or otherwise correct the default.  Loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration, or in which the Veterans' Administration or the Federal Housing Administration is involved may have specific notice periods and guidelines that must be observed before foreclosure should be initiated.   

STEP TWO - Preparing and Filing Foreclosure Complaint.  (Typically 1- 3 weeks, depending on the complexity of the title work required; process can occur contemporaneously with STEP ONE.)  To ensure that all creditors with liens on the real property --  including junior or senior mortgageholders, judgment lien holders, mechanics' lien holders, and taxing authorities -- are properly included as defendants in the foreclosure action, a title report must be ordered from a title company.  It is important to include all such lienholders because if omitted, the lien will remain an encumbrance on the real property even following foreclosure sale, and depending on its priority, might even be entitled to recover proceeds from the foreclsoure sale from other recipients. 

Purusant to Ohio Rev Code 2329.191, the title report or preliminary judicial report (sometimes called PJR, for short), must be filed with the Complaint in the Common Pleas Court in the Ohio county in which the real property is located.  The key is WHERE the property is located; it does not matter if the debtor is a  foreign corporation headquartered in, say Delaware, or if the loan documents were all signed in Michigan, or even if the principal place of business of the debtor is in another county or state. 

Defendants named in the complaint MUST include the follwing:

• Original mortgagor (i.e. party granting the mortgage) - note that this may or may not be the principal borrower and that if not, the principal borrower is not required to be named a defendant
• Current owner of the property, if different from the original mortgagor
• Junior or senior lienholders, including mortgage holders, judgment lien holders, statutory lien holders such as mechanics' liens and others
• Spouse of individual debtor (to eliminate dower rights)
• Current tenants and other occupants, whether there pursuant to written lease or not
• Holders of other interests such as easements, if wish to eliminate them

The Complaint may seek only foreclosure or may also include other counts for such causes of action as money judgments against the borrower(s) and guarantor(s), replevin (i.e.personal property foreclosure - yes, this too will likely eventually be the subject of a separate post), or other related claim.  If a lender has determined appointment of a receiver is warranted, the Complaint will also include a count seeking appointment of a receiver and the lender should have selected a preferred receiver appointee before filing the Complaint.

So this is how a typical Ohio foreclosure generally begins.  In my next post, I'll explain what happens once the foreclosure action is filed and how the process culminates in a sheriff's sale conveying good title to the real estate being foreclosed to another party and providing the source of funds to payall or part of the delinquent debt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Unless I’ve somehow agreed to get up at the crack of dawn to play golf, Sunday morning is a lazy relaxing time for me - definitely a law free zone.  I gradually become aware that I’m awake.  The cats and I have a little “quality” time while I lie in bed watching the CBS Sunday Morning television news magazine.  Eventually I rouse myself to get showered and go downstairs to read the newspaper while watching one of the Sunday morning news talk shows. 

THE HOOK.  After the politicians have had their debates, an infomercial typically comes on next which I sometimes leave on whilst I'm preparing lunch.  This week, it’s “JOHN BECK'S FREE & CLEAR REAL ESTATE SYSYTEM" which promises me that I can profitably invest in all manner of real estate by spending only a few hundred dollars at government “tax sales”.  I’ve seen part of this infomercial on other Sunday mornings, but this time I became intrigued and went on a mission, in part because a client had recently been asking me some questions about real estate investments.

For only $39.95, the infomercial promised to send me a kit explaining how I too could make wads of money  -- just like the folks giving testimonials  -- by taking advantage of government tax foreclosure sales most people don't even know exist.  According to the infomercial, by using the special "Free & Clear Real Estate System",  I will be able to buy tax foreclosure properties for "pennies on the dollar" and own them "free and clear" with no monthly payments.  The infomercial also tells me that all I have to do to get these properties is pay the back taxes owed on them and assures me there are many properties in my area I could get.  Numerous examples were shown of houses bought for only a few hundred dollars, but  worth far more.  And of course there's a money-back guarantee!!! 

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK.  Having long been an adherent of the “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” school of thought, I found it difficult to believe this “system” actually worked, but was nevertheless curious.  As an attorney with substantial experience in real estate and foreclosure law, it also just didn’t square with what I thought I knew about Ohio law in this area.  But I’m always willing to learn new things….

So I decided to investigate.  Google and the internet are a wonderful tool!!  It wasn’t long before I found a website called Infomercialscams.com with page after page of complaints about this very program.  Among the least of the issues with the “Free & Clear Real Estate System” was that the $39.95 apparently wasn’t a one-time fee as the program certainly implied, but instead was a recurring monthly charge.  There was also heart-wrenching story after story of people induced to part with thousands of dollars to "upgrade" to more intensive training and/or who vainly tried to cancel the entire transaction.  Well, if I had been inclined to shell out some money just to check it out, I certainly wasn’t going to do it anymore.  

But I was still confused about how this would work even in theory.  The idea is that because county governments need the tax money to provide necessary services to citizens, they have the power to sell property on which taxes have not been paid.  OK, so far so good – that’s all true and some Ohio counties do indeed have annual tax lien sales.  That, however, is where reality stops.    

A quick look at the Ohio Revised Code (See ORC 5721.30 through 5721.43) and a little more internet research.  I soon determined that while I suppose it’s possible (though I think unlikely) this “buy at tax sales” plan might work in other states, it CERTAINLY DOESN’T WORK IN OHIO!!!

OFFER NOT VALID IN OHIO. Here’s why:

1.  No Such Sales.  Perhaps the most important reason it won’t work here is that Ohio simply doesn’t do a retail “over-the-counter” business in tax lien sales.  Since 1997, only counties with more than 200,000 in population are even permitted to have tax lien sales AND all of them sell tax liens once annually solely to an institutional investor as a single lot costing more than a million dollars.

2.  The Long Wait.  Even if you could participate in a tax lien sale in Ohio, it isn’t the carefree and direct road to quick profits portrayed on the infomercial.  While it is true that if property taxes remain unpaid, the county will eventually offer a tax lien certificate for sale with respect to a particular parcel, that is only the beginning of a rather long journey towards making any money. 

The tax lien certificate does in fact carry an 18% interest rate plus penalties that are dangled before the uninitiated as the safe, secure, and amazingly large return on investment.  What is not disclosed is that having once purchased the tax lien certificate, probably at a discount (i.e. with an interest rate less than 18%), you CANNOT do anything with it for TWELVE MONTHS. 

What you hope happens is that the delinquent taxpayer somehow has an upturn in his financial fortunes and suddenly becomes able to pay off the taxes, plus interest and penalties – in the unlikely event this happens, then yes, you will make money.  However, you are not permitted to contact the delinquent taxpayer during this period and must just wait and see.  In at least some counties, payment plans are offered to those delinquent taxpayers wishing to redeeem their property, thus further delaying your ability to profit on the investment.   In addition, during this period, you may also find yourself dealing with zoning and nuisance issues associated with the property. 

3.  Working Through Foreclosure of the Lien.  If the property is not “redeemed” during this year following your purchase of the tax lien certificate, then you have the “opportunity” to foreclose on your tax lien certificate and finally get possession of the property.  However, you must do so within three years.  In addition,  Ohio is a “judicial” foreclosure state which means that you can’t just schedule a sale of the property and be done with it.  No, a foreclosure action requiring a court filing fee of probably at least $200, has to be filed in the local Court of Common Pleas and wind its way through the courts.  For a fee, generally around $3,500, you can use the services of the County Prosecutor to get this done; it’s also possible for you to engage the services of a lawyer in private practice although I rather doubt there would be any savings with this approach.  By this time you should be adding up the time and expense and wondering why anyone would want to do this.  But there's more......

4.  Minimum Bids Required.  So, assume that you finally get through the foreclosure litigation in a timely manner, perhaps in only a few months. Now what?  Can you still get real estate at a fraction of its true fair market value?  Nope.  Under Ohio law, property sold at foreclosure sale must be appraised (more court costs) and offered for a MINIMUM BID of TWO-THIRDS of its VALUE.  If no one is willing to pay the minimum bid, then the property will be reappraised and offered at a somewhat lower price, but probably not enough less to make it worthwhile.

5.  Dealing with Lenders "Bidding It In".  Maybe you think buying property at two-thirds of its value still sounds like a good deal, especially if you can immediately “flip” it.  Unfortunately, the likelihood of getting the property for that little is not particularly good in practice.  Usually, there will be at least one mortgage on the property as well as possibly some judgment liens.  The bank or financial institution holding the mortgage will not infrequently “bid it in”, meaning that until it bids more than is owed on the mortgage, the lender is essentially playing with “house” money and will not have to come out of pocket to take title to the property.  If the property IS worth having, chances are the lender will have figured that out and bid accordingly.

6.  If You Don't Believe Me...  For the "official" version of what I've just explained, visit the explanations of tax lien sales provided by the Franklin County Treasurer, Hamilton County Treasurer, Cuyahoga County Treasurer, and Lucas County Treasurer.

Look Before You Leap.  Every state is different so the strategy might be more viable elsewhere, but there are bound to be some important procedures you should be sure you’re aware of that must be followed before you can realize any profits.  Some of those may be similar to what I've pointed out above.  In particular, at a minimum, I would suggest determining if the state is a “judicial” foreclosure state like Ohio.  If it is, then it will probably take longer and cost more to get to the point where you can sell or take possession of the property.  Make sure you really understand ALL the steps that need to be taken for you to get from putting money out to supposedly getting more money back.        

My point in going into some detail here is that it’s important to understand fully the process by which you are supposed to get rich before investing even a little hard-earned cash into the deal.  Whether it's this "system" or some other way to invest in real estate, or some other "plan" to make lost of money quickly with almost no risk and little effort, it really is BUYER BEWARE out there.  If there really was a foolproof method of turning real estate into cash, many more people would be financially independent.

Soo.. now you know how I spent part of my Sunday… Scary, huh?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Whether you're a lender making a loan secured by a mortgage on real estate, a prospective buyer, or an unpaid tradesman making improvements to real estate, understanding Ohio mechanics' lien law is very important.  Guernsey Bank v. Milano Sports Enterprises, LLC, 2008-Ohio 2420 (May 20, 2008), a decision recently handed down by the Franklin County Tenth Appellate District Ohio Court of Appeals, while not really that interesting as far as making new law, underscores this importance and should be seen as a warning of what could happen if proper procedures are not followed.  Francisco Luttecke of Bricker & Eckler LLP provides a useful and complete summary of the facts and holding of this case in an e-alert to whose mailing list I seem to have been added (not that I'm complaining).

Facts of Guernsey Bank Case.  At the most basic level, the Guernsey Bank case illustrates some of the problems that can arise in more complicated transactions.  The defendant Milano Sports Enterprises, LLC ("Milano Sports") had entered into a purchase contract to buy an indoor tennis facility that it intended to convert into an ice rink.  Because Milano Sports wanted to get started on renovations immediately rather than waiting to close on the purchase, it entered into a lease agreement with the seller.  About two months later, the purchase was consumated and financed by a loan from Guernsey Bank secured by a mortgage on the subject real estate. 

Meanwhile, in the intervening two months, an electrical contractor and other tradesmen performed some of the work necessary for the conversion, but were not paid.  After the purchase transaction went through and the Guernsey Bank mortgage had been recorded, the electrical contractor and other unpaid contractors filed mechanic's lien affidavits.  It should also not come as too much of a surprise that a few months after this, Guernsey Bank started foreclosure proceedings regarding the real estate. 

Eventually the property was sold at foreclosure sale for $525,000, leaving Guernsey Bank with a deficiency of approximately $75,000.  A priority fight broke out over who was entitled to the foreclosure sale proceeds with Guernsey Bank challenging the priority and validity of the mechanics' liens.  Ultimately, Guernsey Bank received only about $137,000 of the foreclosure sale proceeds because the Court found the mechanics' lien holders had priority.  Thus Guernsey Bank wound up with a deficiency of more than $475,000 instead of only $75,000. 

What to Know About Mechanics' Liens.  Which brings us to the lessons to be learned from this rather ordinary case:

1. Mechanics' liens CAN trump and have priority over previously recorded mortgages in certain circumstances.  If no notice of commencement is filed, the relative priority of a mortgage and a mechanics' lien depends upon when the first of the labor or material was performed or furnished.  If the mortgage is recorded prior to any labor, work or furnishing, then the mortgage lien will have priority.  Ohio Rev. Code §§1311.13(A); 5301.23.  If, however, the labor, work or furnishing begin before the mortgage is filed for record, then the mechanics' lien will have priority over the entire mortgage for the entire amount of the mechanics' lienholder's claim even if (A) some of the goods or services were provided after the mortgage was recorded or (B) the lien affidavit perfecting the mechanics' lien is filed after the mortgage is recorded.  Ohio Rev. Code §§1311.13(A); 5301.23.
2. Determining when the first of the labor or materials were performed or furnished means establishing the date the "first visible" work or material being performed or furnished.  Ohio Rev. Code §1311.13(A)(1).  This test was set forth in the case of Huntington National Bank v. Treasurer of Franklin County, 13 Ohio App.3d 408, 469 N.E.2d 535 (10^th App. Dist. 1983) as

    whether the work performed had produced visible results which were sufficient to make it reasonably apparent to a person examining the site that the construction, excavation, or improvement had actually commenced.... In order for the work to be deemed the commencement of construction, it must form a part of the work necessary for the construction and be of a nature that can afterward be considered a component part of the structure.

   See also Schalmo Builders, Inc. v. Malz, 90 Ohio App.3d 321, 629 N.E.2d 52 (1993).
3. Make sure you get a title insurance policy and don't just rely on a title insurance commitment.  One of the things Guernsey Bank did right was buy a title insurance policy pursuant to which the title company promised to indemnify Guernsey Bank against any loss or damage incurred because of the "[l]ack of priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material [ ] arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for or commenced prior to the Date of Policy * * *."  As a result, at least Guernsey Bank didn't have to pay the mechanics' lienholders out of its own pocket.
4. If you are the lender and/or purchaser in a real estate transaction, make sure you get an affidavit from the seller about off-record matters such as whether any labor or materials have been supplied to the property, just in case the title policy is not as generous as the one here.   
5. If you're going to rely on the construction mortgage exception (set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 1311.14) to the special priority given mechanics' liens, make sure you have more evidentiary support than a settlement statement (which the Court ruled was inadmissible in Guernsey Bank).
6. When preparing and filing a mechanics' lien, take care to follow the form of affidavit set forth by statute.  Ohio Rev. Code 1311.06.  Guernsey Bank challenged the validity of one mechanics' lien because it incorrectly stated the amount due.  While in this case, the Court upheld the validity of the mechanics' lien,  the law in this area is often very strictly interpreted.  Crock Constr. Co. v. Stanley Miller Constr. Co., 66 Ohio St. 3d 588, 613 N.E.2d 1027 (1993).  Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code §1311.06 - which helpfully contains an acceptable form -- the lien affidavit must contain the following information: 
   • Amount due over and above all legal set offs
   • Description of the property sufficient to identify the premises with reasonable certainty, i.e as though for purposes of conveyance or by inclusion of the legal description contained in the deed conveying title to the owner (Ohio Rev. Code §§1311.06(D); 1311.04(B)
   • Name and address of the person to or for whom labor or work was performed or material furnished
   • Name of the owner, part owner, or lessee
   • Name and address of lien claimant
   • First and last days that the lien claimant performed any labor or work or furnished any material to the improvement giving rise to the lien
7. Another thing to remember is that an Affidavit of Lien must be filed with the county recorder for the county in which the property is located within seventy-five (75) days of the last day work was performed or furnished.  Ohio Rev. Code §1311.06(B)(3).  In addition, to perfect a mechanics' lien, it is also necessary to serve the lien affidavit in accordance with the provisions of Ohio Rev. Code §§1311.07 and 1311.19 upon the owner of the subject property within thirty (30) days after it has been recorded by the appropriate county recorder; if service cannot be accomplished, then the lien affidavit must be conspicuously posted at the subject property within ten (10) days after the thirty (30) day service period.  Even if the contracting party has actual knowledge of the lien, it must still be served (or posted) to be valid.  Brown v. Pearson, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2788 (2^nd App. Dist).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A while back, I promised to try to explain how this whole securitization thing works, especially in the context of the subprime mortgage melt-down and the various problems being experienced by the current Wall Street lenders-assignees in accomplishing foreclosure. So here goes.....

Let's start with how the whole thing is structured. Securitization creates subparts in what was initially a simple transaction. While its most well known application is with respect to residential mortgages, equipment leases and virtually any kind of cash flow producing asset can be securitized. In many respects, securitization is simply an extremely sophisticated means of "factoring" a receivable and is just a very advanced form of asset-based lending. The Cleveland Complaint filed in the Cleveland "public nuisance" suit against a number of Wall Street lenders (which I've covered in this previous post) contains a good diagram of the process and does a fairly good job of succinctly describing it as follows:

Mortgage-backed securities essentially are bonds secured by real estate loans. They comprise a collection of mortgages that lenders sell to the issuer of the securities. The issuer uses the sums received from the borrowers in repaying their loans to fund disbursements made to investors.

Using a few more words, but still doing an excellent job of contrasting the securitization process of today with the way it used to be, a recent issue of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Chicago Fed Letter explains:

Thirty years ago, if you got a mortgage from a bank, it was very likely that the bank would keep the loan on its balance sheet until the loan was repaid. That is no longer true. Today, the party you deal with in order to get the loan (the originator) is highly likely to sell the loan to a third party. The third party can be Ginnae Mae, a government agency; Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which are government-sponsored entities (GSEs); or a private sector financial institution. The third party often then packages your mortgage with others and sells the payment rights to investors. This can continue for additional steps. In effect, the eventual buyers of the mortgage - the parties that provide the funding - can be many steps removed from the originator of the mortgage.

 

The process by which most mortgage loans are sold to investors is referred to as securitization.... The MBS origination process typically begins when the issuer purchases a collection of mortgage loans from the originators. As payments are made on the mortgages, they are passed through the trust to bondholders.

The initial steps in securitization are fairly easy to follow. Everyone understands Level 1 - Borrower (often, but not necessarily a residential homeowner) borrows money from Hometown Bank to purchase real estate and gives Hometown Bank a mortgage to secure repayment. So far, so good.

Initial Assignment. Level 1½ might be an ordinary assignment of the promissory note and mortgage from Hometown Bank to a larger financial institution we can call National Bank. This might even be repeated more than once. If it is, this will add to the complexity of the entire transaction and increase the likelihood of a missing or incomplete assignment being involved.

The problem the lenders face in the much publicized recent foreclosure dismissals is that getting the appropriate assignment after the fact, if a discrepancy has occurred, is not a simple matter. In some cases, either Hometown Bank or National Bank, or any of the other financial institutions along the pre-securitization assignment route, may now have merged into other banks or financial institutions without clear assignments of the notes and mortgages having been made. In part, this could simply be a function of reliance upon basic corporate law that a necessary consequence of the merger of two corporations is that the surviving corporation automatically becomes the owner of the assets of the other corporation - which in the case of a bank would include all outstanding loans and all of the notes, mortgages, and other loan documents evidencing the outstanding obligations of borrowers. No specific assignment of individual assets (including notes and mortgages) is necessary. There is also the possibility of basic human error of incorrect assignments having been made along the way.

These are "fixable" problems, although potentially costly and time-consuming to remedy at this point; had these matters been addressed at the time of the original transaction, the cost would have been much less. However, what seems to have been overlooked by many jumping on the bandwagon for a beatdown of the greedy subprime lenders is that these sorts of issues can and do occur totally apart from whether a mortgage has become part of a securitization vehicle.

Why Securitization Is Attractive. Level 2 is where the basic securitization vehicle is created. For National Bank (or even for Hometown Bank if no further assignment is made), the underlying assigned promissory note and mortgage is primarily an income-producing asset. The real property connected to the mortgage is only secondarily important as a means of guaranteeing that the loan will be repaid, i.e. the value of the asset is protected. Before securitization became popular in the 1990's, Hometown Bank made a profit through the spread between (A) the interest rate on its cost of funds from money it obtained through deposits from other bank customers, or otherwise and (B) the interest rate charged to Borrower. Hometown Bank might decide to accept a discounted return by assigning the note and mortgage to National Bank and receiving an immediate lump sum payment in return. National Bank made money by buying the promissory note and mortgage for less than their full amount and being willing to wait for Borrower to pay the full face amount over time.

Securitization provides a new way to unlock the income producing potential of the mortgage and promissory note and to leverage the associated cash flow. This can result in greater returns to the owners of that financial institution or simply give National Bank more funds so it can make more loans to other borrowers.

Nature of Securitization. At Level 2, a new "bankruptcy remote" "special purpose entity", known colloquially as an SPE, is created, often as a "trust" entity in which the originator National Bank holds the sole beneficial interest. This is where things become a bit more complicated. The concept is that the SPE will have no other purpose than as a holding vehicle for the notes and mortgage which are assigned to it. In addition, because the SPE is a separate entity from National Bank, any insolvency or financial difficulties experienced by National Bank will not affect the SPE or cause any of the SPE's assets to be distributed to creditors of National Bank. Consequently, any investment vehicle connected with the SPE becomes more attractive to investors.

The SPE "buys" the underlying promissory note and mortgage and there is an "absolute" assignment of promissory notes and related mortgages from the "originator" Hometown Bank or National Bank to the SPE. To fund this "purchase", the SPE (to which mortgages and promissory notes have been assigned) issues securities usually referred to as mortgage-backed securities, or MBSs, representing the right to receive the cash flow from the SPE's entire portfolio of mortgages and promissory notes.

The agreements assigning the mortgages and promissory notes to the SPE, as well as the Servicing Agreements which cover loan administration after the assignment, are extremely long and complicated and contain numerous provisions. For example, one of the keys to securitization is that the "originator" -- National Bank in our example -- needs to be able to remove the underlying promissory note and mortgage from its balance sheet. For this to occur, lawyers for National Bank will be asked to give "true sale" opinions of counsel to the effect that in fact actual ownership of the promissory note and mortgage has been conveyed to the SPE from National Bank. However, as a practical matter, National Bank may be forced to repurchase notes and mortgages assigned to the SPE if too many of them prove uncollectible.

Securitization Achieved. Level 3 is the point at which the connection between the cash flow tied to the mortgage and promissory note really becomes attenuated. This is where the securitization part actually happens. Just as the assets of an ordinary company might include accounts receivable, an SPE's assets are (theoretically) the underlying promissory notes and mortgages and the obligations of Borrower evidenced by these debt instruments. MSBs are issued by the SPE based on the value of these promissory notes and mortgages which in a perfect world would be based on the face amount still owing; when investors purchase MSBs, it is not unlike buying shares of stock in an ordinary company.

In reality, the MBSs are given a rating by an underwriter based upon the perceived likelihood of the collectibility of the underlying promissory notes and mortgages. They are then offered in the public market to investors, primarily sophisticated "institutional" investors; the better the "rating", the more attractive the MSBs are to "institutional" investors, including those seeking a "conservative" investment such as state pension plans.

An already complex set of relationships is further complicated by the fact that, typically, at Level 4, the SPE delegates the actual oversight over the mortgages and promissory notes, and the cash flow they produce, to a servicing agent. The servicing agent then may take action, including initiating collection activities and foreclosure, in its own name or in the name of others along the chain. Frequently, originator National Bank continues to act as the servicing agent and receives a fee from the SPE for performing these tasks.

Investor Cash Flow. As Borrower repays his or her loan, the cash flow generated - minus any servicing fee paid to National Bank or other servicing agent - flows through the SPE to the investors who purchased the MSBs. Sometimes, there will be various classes of investors, sometimes referred to as "tranches", so that certain investors will be paid sooner than others or receive a greater return on their investment.

And that, essentially is what securitizationis all about. For those wanting still more detail (including a very nice summary of the advantages and disadvantages to the various parties in the transaction other than the Borrower) or technical information, about securitization, I recommend visiting Wikipedia's entry on the subject.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Today, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann -- along with the Attorney Generals of ten other states as part of a group calling itself the State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group -- issued a report on the "foreclosure crisis" and the perceived shortcomings in the response of "subprime mortage loan servicers". The report is titled Analysis of Subprime Mortgage Servicing Performance -Data Report No. 1, thus implying that additional "reports" will be forthcoming. Click here to read the press release issued by the Office of Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann about the report. (Click here to learn about the other foreclosure prevention assistance resources the Office of Attorney General Marc Dann has assembled.) As things have been going on this topic, this is one of the more sedate and traditional governmental responses to arise.

I've previously posted on the initial set of foreclosure dismissals by federal judges in Cleveland and Dayton which, at least in the Cleveland cases, might have had as much to do with federal judges wanting to send a message to lenders to stop bothering federal courts with ordinary foreclosure cases that belonged in regular state court. And in another previous post, I rounded up pertinent pleadings from those cases. Then, as things began to take a truly novel turn with the Cleveland "public nuisance" lawsuit against the Wall Street securitization lenders and the Baltimore "predatory lending" case, I posted again to the effect that while I wasn't convinced any of attacks on pending foreclosures had much basis in legal rationality, I recognized that things were about to get a whole lot more interesting.

I had thought this would be the end of it for a while and had every intention of quietly returning to my usual array of topics more immediately related to the legal concerns and issues facing businesses. I had no idea. As events in what the swirling maelstorm generally becoming known as the subprime problem/foreclosure mess continue to unfold every day and every week, I find myself inextricably drawn to discovering each new revelation. And I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is only the beginning of a very long, very tortuous, odyssey in the annuals of foreclosure law. Because part of the purpose behind this blog is to help business people make sense of legal concepts intruding into their lives, I've chosen to revisit this topic once again.

Ohio AG Efforts to Halt Foreclosures. Thanks to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog for reporting on another intriguing chapter in the whole bizarre Ohio foreclosure scene. Earlier this week, Magistrate Michael L. Bachman of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court issued a Magistrate's Decision in Deustche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Barnes, Case No. Ao705631, Judge Ruehlman presiding, arguably interjecting something of a voice of reason to the debate, but also igniting its own controversy.

The 11-page decision rebuked Attorney General Marc Dann for filing a Motion to Dismiss piggybacking on prior federal decisions dismissing foreclosures in Cleveland and Dayton and even went so far as to question the Attorney General's legal ethics. (Interestingly, in contrast to other actions being undertaken by the Office of Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, this and similar legal actions are being pursued without publicity or press release by the AG's Office.) However, to me, the more important part of the decision points out that the whole "where's the assignment piece of paper" ignores well settled law that as between the debtor and the holder of the note and mortgage, recording is not a necessary element for recovery. As Magistrate Bachman explains:

under the Uniform Commercial Code as codified in Ohio, parties to a Note, subsequent holders of the note, nonholders in possession of the note who have the rights of holders and persons not in possession of the note who are entitled to enforce the Note pursuant to other statutory requirements, may enforce the terms of the Note as to each other. parties falling within these legal categories may enforce the terms of the note even if the note is lost, stoledn, or destroyed.

 

Ohio law does not require parties to the note to record the note with the county. Rather, controlling case law states that the current holder of a note, despite having no part in the original transaction, is the real party in interest....

 

Ohio case law and statutory authority do not require the recording of a mortgage as a condition precedent to enforcement as between the parties.

Magistrate Bachman makes the additional point that requiring "plaintiffs to attach all relevant assignments at the pleading stage seems overly burdensome, given the notice pleading requirements contemplated in Civil Rule 8."

The Disconnect. Don't get me wrong - I recognize that this country is facing a crisis of substantial proportions as a result of many people having become unable to pay their home mortgages in accordance with the terms of the loans they signed for. And I'm even willing to accept that in at least some cases, unsophisticated borrowers may have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous mortgage brokers more interested in their bonus commission than explaining exactly how the "too good to be true" mortgage was really likely to unfold. Nor do I care to dispute that some governmental intervention may well be appropriate at some point.

It's just that I'm having more and more difficulty understanding how the governmental response reflected by various recent convoluted actions and events makes much sense even by itself or is really going to be very productive in the long run. For example, the Barnes case presents a rather unusual procedural situation in which the State of Ohio's Motion to Dismiss was apparently not filed until after the State of Ohio had already filed an untimely Answer, a Judgment Entry had already been entered, AND the property in question had ALREADY BEEN SOLD AT SHERIFF'S SALE and only the Entry Confirming the Sale remained to be entered. Now call me picky, but this does seem to be the proverbial situation where the horse has already left the barn.

Apparently Barnes was only one of seven foreclosure cases in which the Attorney General sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the lender had failed to demonstrate it was the proper owner of the note and mortgage in default. I don't know what the procedural status of the others were, but I would hope that at least some of them were not quite so far down the track. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to even seriously consider the argument being made.

The bottom line for me is yes, lenders should have to demonstrate they are the proper holder of a promissory note and mortgage involved in a foreclosure. However, once a lender has asserted that, regardless of whether an actual assignment is produced, it ought to be up to the borrower/homeowner to demonstrate that's not the case. Unless there's really any serious doubt that the foreclosing lender is the proper "holder in due course" entitled to enforce the mortgage -- and up to now I've not heard of any cases in which multiple lenders are claiming they are BOTH entitled to foreclose a particular mortgage -- borrowers should not be allowed to escape the consequences of having freely borrowed money and not paying it back.

No one disputes that real money was lent to real people who used it to buy actual homes. Whether these borrowers fully understood what they were getting into -- and regardless where one comes out on whether these people need to take some responsibility for their actions in accepting these loans -- is a separate issue. The point is that no one disputes that these borrowers do in fact have some obligation to repay these amounts, or at least a substantial portion of the funds received. Addressing the unfortunate consequences of this legal conclusion IS a valid concern, but it is one that ought to be addressed somewhere other than in the standard foreclosure case.

Others will undoubtedly note that the Barnes Magistrate's Decision has no force until it is adopted by Judge Ruehlman and that objections to it will almost certainly be filed, all of which is true. However, I find myself in agreement with Magistrate Bachman's conclusion:

The Attorney General acknowledges he directed his staff to file the seven motions to dismiss in Hamilton County in order to "raise a public policy issue". The court acknowledges courts in Ohio and throughout the nation have sometimes created new public policy based upon tenuous linkages to existing law or procedure. Certainly, the Attorney General is free to use his office to "lobby" for changes in the law and civil procedure he feels are in the public interest.

 

The Constitutions of both the United States of America and the State of Ohio guarantee the people the right to petition their respective governments for a redress of their grievances. However, the proper venue for such petitions lies in the branches of government vested with the authority to change the law or procedure at issue. In Ohio, the people and the State Assembly have the express authority to enact legislation in the State of Ohio. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Ohio is vested with the authority to "prescribe rules governing practice and procedure in all courts of the state." Comity suggests the judiciary defer its exercise of jurisdiction over these questions to those governmental institutions constitutionally vested with such authroity. If, as the Attorney General asserts, he directed his subordiantes to file these motions seeking to change the way courts adjudicate foreclosure actions in the State of Ohio, then the Attorney General should address his efforts to the General Assembly or Supreme Court of Ohio.

I haven't yet read the AG's foreclosure crisis report, but I for one would like to see more of this sort of governmental response and political proposals based on this sort of analysis and less mettling with legitimate judicial proceedings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

OK, so I thought the dismissals of foreclosures without prejudice by three federal judges a couple of months back were not that big a deal by themselves. Click here and here for my earlier postings on the decisions by Judge Boyko, Judge O'Malley, and Judge Rose. However, the recent "public nuisance" and "predatory lending" lawsuits by the City of Cleveland and the City of Baltimore, respectively - coupled with a number of other events I'll describe below - HAS gotten my attention.

I stand by my earlier postings about the importance of those particular decisions on their own, but the march of events since then clearly indicates that foreclosures - regardless of whether they are connected to the subprime mortgage business - and mortgage lending in general are destined for the national stage. For a quick round-up on what's been happening here in Ohio click here. For those wanting the most succinct description of recent legal filings in Cleveland and Baltimore, click here for the Wall Street Journal Law Blog's posting.

As might be expected, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the rulings did affect the actual number of filings in federal court in Cleveland, resulting in drastically fewer filings. Click here for the Christmas Day story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. However, the impact has been far more widespread. Like a lit match dropped on dry wood, these rulings have ignited a veritable forest fire not easily extinguished.

Summary of Recent Events. A brief review of some recent events is in order. This is by no means complete, even with respect to Ohio, but should give an idea of the burgeoning issue.

• In early December, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Steven E. Martin dismissed a Wells Fargo foreclosure with facts very similar to those in the federal cases. Although the bank was ultimately able after the case had been filed to demonstrate that it was the owner of the mortgage, Judge Martin nevertheless dismissed the action. In addition, the law firm handling the foreclosure was told that it could not file any more foreclosures unless it provided proof of the client's ownership of the mortgage at the time of the initial filing. Click here for news coverage on this by Cincinnati Enquirer.

• According to several news reports (including various ones I've linked to elsewhere in this post), the Consumer Protection Section of the Office of Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is apparently waging a stealth campaign by filing motions in Hamilton County and elsewhere challenging whether the named plaintiff is the proper "party in interest". Interestingly, while some reports state that as many as 30 such motions have been filed, there is no press release on the Attorney General's website concerning these actions.

• On the Friday before Christmas, Ohio State Bar Association President Rob Ware sent an e-mail to OSBA members seeking volunteers to help assist people facing foreclosure and according to this story in the Cincinnati Enquirer, by the day after Christmas more than 200 attorneys had volunteered.

• In Clermont County, Common Pleas Judge Robert P. Ringland has sent a letter to local law firms asking that they participate in mediation in foreclosure cases. Click here for coverage by the Cincinnati Enquirer.

• Following on the heels of the recently released University of Iowa study Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims detailing widespread "shortcuts" and other less than stellar loan collection practices in Chapter 13 bankruptcies, came a New York Times article about how Countrywide Home Loan, Inc. was forced to admit it "recreated" certain letters used as evidence in a bankruptcy proceeding. Read the Countrywide Transcipt of the Status Conference in which this came out.

Enter City of Baltimore and City of Cleveland. Then, last week came the attention-commanding lawsuits by the City of Baltimore and the City of Cleveland:

• Last Tuesday, the City of Baltimore filed a Complaint infederal district court, Case No. L 08 CV 062,against Wells Fargo Bank, NA alleging that the bank engaged in a"reverse redlining"predatory lendingpractice by charging higher fees and interest rates in Baltimore's poorest neigborhoods, resulting in foreclosure rates twice the citywide average. Click here for the press release issued by the City of Baltimore about the lawsuit. Click here for news coverage by the New York Times. Click here and here for news coverage by the Baltimore Sun-Times and here for Baltimore Sun-Times coverage of reaction.

• A couple of days later on January 10, 2008, the City of Cleveland filed a "public nuisance" action in state court against Deutsche Bank Trust Company and twenty other lenders (including Wells Fargo & Company, but not including any Ohio home grown institutions such as National City Bank, KeyBank, Fifth Third Bank or the Huntington National Bank) in a suit on the docket of Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court captioned City of Cleveland v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, Case No. CV 08 646970, Judge Corrigan presiding, Here is a copy of the filed Cleveland Complaint and a graphic showing the named defendants and their foreclosure activity in the Cleveland area. Click here for the City of Cleveland press release on the case.
  • For news coverage from Cleveland including a video of Cleveland Law Director Robert Triozzi discussing the lawsuit, click here and here. In the "notable quote" department, Cleveland Mayor Jackson told the Cleveland Plain Dealer reporters, "To me, this is no different than organized crime or drugs."
  • For Cleveland Plain Dealer coverage of reaction to the suit, click here
  • For the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Sunday editorial praising the filing of the lawsuit click here.
  • UPDATE: On January 16, 2008, defendant Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. got the case removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 08-CV-00139-DCN, Judge Donald C. Nugent presiding. As might be expected, the City of Cleveland has responded by filing a Motion to Remand.

What the Boyko, O'Malley, and Rose decisions did was legitimize lingering questions and uncork pent-up forces long looking for an angle of attack. To some extent, an old problem has simply gotten new visibility. Click here for an ABC News story on a New Hampshire man engaged in a six year "predatory lending" battle and click here for a Wall Street Journal Law Blog posting about a Cleveland man ahead of the curve who made the "not the owner" argument years ago and is now appealing on that basis to the United States Sixth Circuit. Read his arguments in Davet Motion.

So, basically there's a lot to take in at this point. For one academic perspective on whether municipalities even have standing to file actions like the City of Baltimore action, see Cleveland State University Assistant Professor Kathleen Engel's 2005 paper, "Do Cities Have Standing? Redressing the Externalites of Predatory Lending", which discusses "public nuisance" as a possible basis for city claims against predatory lenders.

What's It All Mean? Anyone who reading the papers over the last month or so can see that the politicians from the federal government on down have recognized that foreclosures have started to be a enough of a real risk for a substantial enough Americans that they need to take notice. And there will undoubtedly be various plans offering "assistance" of one kind or another to "deserving" homeowners. It's still too early to know the form these will take or whether they will really help any significant number of people.

From a legal standpoint, residential foreclosures in Ohio may become more costly for lenders (and less easy for lenders' counsel to do on a "flat rate" per case basis as is often done) in the short run. Logically, the stricter standards may also carry over into commericial foreclosures although probably with less impact since commericial mortgages are less often commoditized into securitization vehicles.

Documenting Ownership. In the end, however, the "not the real owner" argument will merely force lenders to take more care in documenting transfers of mortgage loans. While this is certainly not a bad thing from an objective standpoint - although it may add to transaction costs ( which may ultimately be passed on to consumers), especially in the beginning as lenders retool - it is also not some sort of fatal blow to the mortgage lending industry or even to securitization. In addition, not every mortgage loan has been assigned away. This theory may buy some borrowers some time (and sometimes that IS very important), but with some exceptions, it's probably not going to change the outcome for most borrowers in default.

Public Nuisance. Although the "public nuisance" theory advanced by the City of Cleveland is certainly innovative and I'd be remiss if I didn't give kudos to a superfically appealing argument, I just don't see it as a winning argument ultimately. I haven't fully digested the lengthy Complaint yet and perhaps once I do, I'll have a better understanding. It strikes me as just another reincarnation of the "lender liability" arguments in vogue when I began practicing law - "you shouldn't have lent me the money because you knew I couldn't pay it back". At some point, there has to be some assumption of responsibility by borrowers for taking the loans in the first place. From my cursory review of the City of Cleveland Complaint, it seems to contend that lenders "should have known" about all sorts of trends and economic factors more easily understood by everyone in hindsight. While "lender liability" lawsuits did get some borrowers out of some loans and did complicate lenders' lives for a while, eventually the novelty wore off. I think the same thing may happen here.

Predatory Lending. Now this one MIGHT amount to something. If lenders did mislead borrowers about the terms of their loan, then they should have to reap the consequences. Perhaps due to all my years as bank counsel, however, I'm a bit skeptical here too. The truth of the matter is that NONE of us really listen to all of the terms of the loan; we just want the house and are happy we found a bank willing to give us the money we need to make it happen. So who's job is it to police the terms offered? Again I haven't fully analyzed the allegations of the City of Baltimore Complaint either so I'm not sure how strong that case is. So I will be interested to see how this one develops, both in Baltimore and elsewhere.

Why It Matters. Aside from the obvious reasons why we should all care about this issue both personally in terms of our own ability to access mortgage loans and more generally in terms of the plight of our fellow citizen, its effect on the credit markets is likely to extend beyond residential mortgages. Business owners may find that their ability and cost to obtain credit have changed.

It's hard to know for sure how the foreclosure "crisis" will play out over the next few months in Ohio and elsewhere. In the short run, however, "business as usual" for the foreclosing lender is over for a while.

UPDATE: What Might Be Next. For an interesting peek at what might be next in Cleveland and Baltimore, click here for the recent cover story in Business Week about "Bank Day" in a Buffalo courtroom in which lenders are being held accountable for various housing code violations on properties being foreclosed upon.

This post was accidentally deleted for a time, but fortunately I had kept a copy and was able to put the original post back up once I realized the problem.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Over the last couple of weeks, Judge Boyko and Judge O'Malley in Cleveland, as well as Judge Rose in Dayton, have dismissed numerous residential foreclosures brought by the trustees of mortgage-backed securitizations on the grounds that the financial institutions have failed to demonstrate adequately their ownership of the mortgages being foreclosed. Because of all the hype these federal court dismissals without prejudice seem to be getting, especially in the blogosphere (visit Iamfacingforeclosure.com if you don't know what I'm talking about), I thought it would be helpful to post some basic source documents in one place so that everyone could see what this is all about.

1. Judges' Opinions - there are three so far that I know about:

• Judge Boyko's decision, handed down October 31, 2007, dismissed 14 cases and has the most colorful language and juicy footnotes - click JudgeBoykoOrder to read.

• Judge O'Malley's decision, handed down November 14, 2007, dismissed 32 cases and is the most matter-of-fact decision - click Judge O'Malley Order to read.

• Judge Rose's decision, handed down November 15, 2007, dismissed 20 cases and chooses to focus on a perception that mortgage lenders are generally scofflaws by referencing a study by University of Iowa Associate Professor Katherine Porter (more about this below) - click JudgeRoseOrder to read.

2. Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims, a recently released study by University of Iowa Associate Professor Katherine Porter of 1700 Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases filed in April 2006 across 24 states which was quoted by Judge Rose as follows:

("[H]ome mortgage lenders often disobey the law and overreach in calculating the mortgage obligations of consumers.... Many of the overcharges and unreliable calculations... raise the spector of poor recordkeeping, failure to comply with consumer protection laws, and massive, consistent overcharging.")

I have not yet read this study with any thoroughness so I can't comment on it other than to say its conclusion certainly is that mortgage lenders have been permitted to be rather lax in providing appropriate documentation in at least consumer bankruptcy proceedings. From the limited vantage point of my own legal practice, I will say that I disagree with the conclusion as a sweeping generalization.

3. The Affidavits - Just so everyone understands what these Judges were looking at, I thought I would post examples from each Judge of an Affidavit being put forth. In most state courts in Ohio, no such affidavit is needed at the inception of the case. Yes, they are fairly conclusory.

• Affidavit in Boyko Case
• Affidavit in O'Malley Case
• Affidavit in Rose Case

4. The Complaints - again so we are all starting from the same information, here are examples of the Complaints that were filed in these cases, together with a notation of the named plaintiff and the named mortgagee in the document in each case:

• Complaint in Boyko case - Plaintiff is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee of Argent Mortgage Securties, Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated April 1, 2006, assignee of Argent Mortgage Company, LLC. Mortgagee is Argent Mortgage Company, LLC
• Complaint in O'Malley case - Plaintiff is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee of Argent Mortgage Securties, Inc. Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-W5 under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2005 Without Recourse. Mortgagee is Argent Mortgage Company, LLC
• Complaint in Rose case - Plaintiff is Citibank, N.A., as trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2005-FF12 c/o Home Loan Services, Inc. Mortgagee is First Franklin, a division on Nat. City Bank of In.

Rather than explaining the chain of title or alleging that the named plaintiff is an assignee of the original mortgagee, the Complaints simply allege that the named plaintiff is the "holder" of the mortgage, or perhaps the "owner and holder" of the mortgage. Had either the Complaint, or the Affidavit, in these cases added an extra sentence or two explaining the assignment, it would not have been nearly as easy a decision for the courts to dismiss these cases.

5. Securitization - What's it All About? - And finally for those who really are trying to understand the underlying factual and legal context in which these dismissals occurred, I offer the following links to resources explaining how securitization works. At some point soon, I hope to post on this as well [UPDATE-click here for post on this] , but for now visit either:

Chicago Federal Reserve November 2007 newsletter

Wikipedia's Securitization posting

In Ohio, foreclosures are most often brought in state, rather than federal, court. One reason these cases may have been filed in federal court was for the convenience of being able to assign a number of cases to a single attorney who would not have to travel from county to county. It will be interesting to see if Ohio state court judges (who are elected) follow the lead of the federal courts or this becomes a friendlier forum for financial institutions.

I continue to think that the most likely outcome in the long run will simply be more detailed form Complaints explaining the securitization process and alleging the plaintiff is an assignee. New securitizations may also involve a few more pieces of paper as individual assignments are executed for the notes and mortgages, or more likely there will simply be a schedule attached to a blanket assignment.

What is not going to happen is that securitization ceases to be a viable financing tool. Instead, those involved in these transactions will merely adapt. There may be some delays, or additional costs, in the short run, but ultimately securitization will continue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Cleveland foreclosure cases recently dismissed by Judge Boyko and Judge O'Malley have been incorrectly heralded by some as a severe blow to lenders wishing to foreclose on delinquent loans. At most, the decisions are merely a warning to a certain class of lenders involved in "securitization" transactions that they will need to pay more attention to certain details in those transactions, particularly if they wish to avail themselves of the federal courts in Northern Ohio.

It may have started with this post from I am Facing Foreclosure.com, but it was the New York Times story by Gretchen Morgensen which increased the level of interest in the dismissals of more than thirty foreclosure cases by two federal judges in Cleveland, Ohio. This then produced a bevy of activity in the blogosphere as others rushed in to express how exciting this was for borrowers. Click here and here for a sample of the reaction.

Now that Judge Rose, another federal judge in Dayton, Ohio has dismissed fourteen other similar cases and this has now also been reported by Gretchen Morgensen in the New York Times, some pundits will undoubtedly become even more effusive about this "victory" for homeowners facing foreclosure. For a copy of Judge Rose's Order, click JudgeRoseOrder.

However, those believing that these federal trial court dismissals without prejudice have somehow signaled disaster for lenders everywhere and a debt holiday for borrowers are sadly mistaken. To be sure, there have been some responsible bloggers who have tried to stem the tide against premature celebration. For example Calculated Risk has made at least two reasoned and exceptionally well explained posts about what this is all really about. Click here and here to read these - and if you read nothing else about these cases, read this! In addition, John Waller of the Indiana Commercial Foreclosure Blog has rather succinctly summed up what these cases mean in reality for lenders:

The moral of the story is that the institution filing the foreclosure suit, if pressed by the Court or the defendant borrower, must have proof that it owned the note and held the mortgage on the date of the filing of the foreclosure complaint. As demonstrated by the Ohio ruling, with respect to mortgage security pools this seemingly simple requirement may be burdensome or perhaps even impossible under certain structuring.

Corrective action probably can be taken during the proceedings in most cases to ensure that the named plaintiff actually holds the mortgage and owns the note. For example, depending upon the circumstances, the pleadings can be amended to name the proper party or, on the other hand, assignments can be executed to place the note/mortgage into the hands of the plaintiff. Lenders/investors and their counsel should be advised of the Ohio ruling and prepare themselves accordingly.

At the outset, it is important to understand how limited the dismissal ruling really is. All of the cases were dismissed "without prejudice" which means that once the deficiencies noted by the Judges are corrected (which they probably can be), the lenders can, and almost certainly will, refile the foreclosure successfully. In addition, unlike most foreclosures that are typically filed in state court, these dismissals occurred in cases filed in federal courts and there is no way to know whether state courts would require the same proof of the ownership of notes and mortgages. Finally, these were decisions made by trial courts which leaves other trial courts free to make other decisions.

So why were the cases dismissed? Simply put, the lenders failed to take sufficient care in establishing the chain of ownership through the various assignments of the mortgage and promissory note from one financial institution to another. The nature of the "securitization" process as applied to the mortgages in question certainly contributed to this shortcoming by making it more cumbersome to obtain all of the proper assignments throught the chain of title.

However, as explained in the Calculated Risk postings, with some expenditure of time and money, the problem can be remedied in these cases and relatively minor changes in procedures can totally eliminate the issue. Moreover, in those cases where the promissory note and mortgage have only been assigned once or twice and are not part of a mortgage-backed securitization, the problem of demostrating ownership is unlikely to arise anyway.

Thus, while these developments certainly underscore the importance of attention to detail, they in no way indicate any collapse of the securitization market or an insurmouintable problem for lenders. For another bank attorney's similar conclusion focusing on the practical realities of the situation, read Kevin Funnell's "Tale of Two Judges" posting on his Bank Lawyer's Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)