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

It's been a couple of months now since Ohio's new recording law (revised Ohio Rev. Code section 317.114) regarding the required format of documents and instruments  filed in county recorder's office went into effect.  Such documents  and instruments includes deeds, mortgages, easements, mechancs' liens, and similar items.  And it appears that the new formatting requirements are being VERY strictly enforced throughout the state.

For those not yet in the know, effective July 1, 2009, it became very important to pay attention to the formatting of documents and instruments to be filed in county recorder's offices.  The most important requirements now are:

• There must be a 3 inch margin on the top of the first page so that there is adequate room for county officers to affix their various filing information; 1 1/2 inch margin on the top of the remaining pages
• All other margins (side and bottom) must be at least 1 inch,
• Signatures must only be in blue or black ink. 
• At least 10 point font type must be used

And what if you mess up?  Well then you must pay an additional $20 recording fee.

Now while you might think these are a pain, they don't seem like they would be all that hard to do, right?  Here's some things you might not have thought of that are falling afoul of the new law:

• The required margins are sacrosanct.  Among other things which do NOT or may not comply are:
  • Document ID numbers in the footer (at least at my office, these are automatically added)
  • Signatures which bleed into the side margins or are too close to the bottom.  People with long names or who have capital G, J, Y or Z or lower case f, g, j , p, q or y in their names may be particular risks in this area
  • Page numbers
  • "Return to" or "This Instrument prepared by" notations in the margins
  • Borrower's intials often found in the lower right hand corner of  form residential mortgages
  • Notary's stamp encroaching on a margin
  • Older file-stamped legal descriptions used as exhibits

• At least 10 point type means EVERYWHERE.  Here's some things which may not have crossed your mind:
  • Document ID numbers
  • Older file-stamped legal descriptions used as exhibits
  • "Return to" or "This Instrument prepared by" notations

Subsection (B) does have certain exceptions such as any document originating with a court or taxing authority or from a state or federal agency

Bottomline, until you get used to the new requirements, take special care to make sure your documents comply.  Or I suppose you could just decide you'd rather just pay the extra $20. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So does it make a difference if someone messes up and forgets to attach the exact legal description to a mortgage which then gets recorded?  It may depend on how specific the mortgage is in describing the parcel of real property. 

Now I thought this seemed like an easy question, but apparently we needed a Sixth Circuit opinion recently issued (and recommended for full publication) to tell us that as long as the property is identified with sufficient precision that you could actually locate it  in real life, the mortgage works as a valid lien on the property.  Thanks to Amy Bower (who represented the winner),  my Managing Partner here in the Columbus office of Plunkett Cooney for sharing this decision with me.  

In Argent Mortgage Company, LLC v. Drown, Case No. 08-4508 (6th Cir. August 25, 2009), the Court addressed the question of

whether a recorded mortgage that contains the street address of residential property - but not the legal description - is sufficient to preclude the setting aside of an other-wise mortgage in bankruptcy court.

Judge Hoffman originally ruled that the Chapter 7 Trustee could avoid the mortgage pursuant to section 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, relying heavily upon Stubbins v. American General Financial Services, Inc. (In re Easter), 367 B.R. 608 (Bankr. S.D.Ohio 2007), a decision by Judge Preston.  and caselaw discussed in that opinion, Judge Hoffman reasoned:

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court agrees with the Trustee that something more than the street address and permanent parcel number is necessary to provide constructive notice of the Mortgage to a hypothetical good-faith purchaser for value.  This is so because even if a third party had record notice of the existence of this Mortgage, neither the parcel number nor the street address , nor both together, would lead that third party to discover precisely what property is covered by the Mortgage.  Both a street address and a permanent parcel number may refer to a geographic area that contains more or less than what the morgagor intended to encumber.

The district court reversed and the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's decision.  I agree with the Sixth Circuit in this situation when it notes

Mortgaging part rather than all of a single-dwelling residential subdivision property  is far enough outside the ordinary course of business that a reasonable prospective purchaser should assume that an ambiguous mortgage likely intended to encompass the entire residential lot at issue  

• 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

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)

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

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)