Tucson Land Use Law Blog : Tucson Land Use Lawyer & Attorney : Fleishman Law Firm : Tax Liens, Foreclosures, Zoning

For those unfamiliar with the tax lien process, delinquent real property taxes become a lien on an owner's real property.  To secure the payment of unpaid delinquent taxes, county treasurers sell tax liens, which are interest-bearing investments. See A.R.S. § 42-18101. Upon a tax lien sale (held in February of each year by each of the 15 Arizona counties) or an over-the-counter sale, the county treasurer of each county issues the purchaser a certificate of purchase, known as a tax lien certificate for a given year or multiple years.

Interestingly, certain counties require tax lien certificate purchasers to pay the aggregate amount of
all delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and charges on the property for current and preceding years, including those encompassed by outstanding, still unredeemed, tax lien certificates held by other tax lien investors.  However, not every county has the same policy.  For example, in Maricopa County and Pima County (exercising their apparent leeway under A.R.S. §42-18104(C)), the county treasurers sell tax liens that encompass delinquencies for tax years not previously sold to private investors, but do not require the purchaser to also pay delinquencies for years encompassed by earlier tax lien certificates. Under this practice, separate purchasers in separate years may acquire competing tax lien certificates on the same parcel, which creates interesting situations in practice.

I just recently had a case in Pima County in which my client owned a 2004 tax lien and another investor owned tax liens for for 2005-2008.  My client began the tax lien foreclosure proceeding in 2009 (three years after the tax lien was first made available for sale - 2006).  However, in early 2010, the owner of the 2005-2008 tax liens also began its own tax lien foreclosure case for its 2005 tax lien.  Under A.R.S. §42-18151(A)(3), any person who has a legal or equitable claim in the property, including a certificate of purchase of a different date may redeem a tax lien.  Practically speaking, that meant in my case that either tax lien holder could redeem the other tax lien holder's position out.  In order to preserve my client's priority lien position (2004 tax lien), he redeemed the other tax lien holder (the holder of the 2005-2008 tax liens). 

The very real risk that my client now faces is the possibility that the owner of record or an interested party in the real property could redeem his tax lien, in which case he would be in the lurch for the amount that he just paid to redeem out the other tax lien holder.  This case emphasizes the importance of taking advantage of the opportunity to pay subsequent year's delinquent taxes, which essentially attach to the prior year's tax lien.  This avoids this scenario in which another tax lien investor is able to buy competing tax liens with the possibility of redeeming out an earlier tax lien holder.  

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

Bank of America, which bought Countrywide Financial for $4 billion in stock in early 2008, has come under pressure from the Massachusetts Attorney General, as a result of Countrywide's notorious lending practices.  Bank of America's move is part of an agreement to settle claims over certain high-risk loans made by Countrywide.  See link to Wall Street Journal article.

Bank of America's program is limited to Countrywide borrowers whose loan balance is at least 120% of the estimated home value, who are at least 60 days overdue, and who can show that financial hardship makes them unable to meet current payments. The bank estimated that 45,000 customers will qualify for principal reductions averaging more than $60,000.  In the end, only the riskiest loans will be eligible. They include sub-prime loans; "option adjustable-rate" mortgages entailing minimal payments now but big increases later; and certain loans that have a fixed rate for two years and then adjust annually.

Any thought that principal reduction is the path the lenders are heading in should consider the limited scope of the agreement between Bank of America and the Massachusetts Attorney General.  Nonetheless, the action by Bank of America is notable because it is the largest mortgage servicer, collecting loan payments on one of every five home loans in the U.S. At the end of last year, 14.76% of them were at least 30 days past due or in foreclosure, versus an industry average of 12.31%, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. 

Principal reduction is clearly the direction that the large majority of underwater borrowers clearly are hoping the major banks are leaning towards.  Given that lenders must incur substantial costs in foreclosing, only to take a wash when they sell the foreclose property as a Real Estate Owned property, it only seems practical to try and keep people in their homes by reducing the principal.  I have seen many properties where the bank ended up selling a foreclosed property for substantially less than they would have made had they just worked with the homeowner.  No one claims that reason is driving this ship. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the tax lien foreclosure world, appropriate service of process is absolutely crucial.  Consider what is at stake in a tax lien foreclosure case - the potential forfeiture of the right of the owner of a property to pay off their delinquent property taxes, which practically speaking means the likely loss of their property.  If you are going to foreclose on someone's property, for their failure to pay property taxes for five consecutive years, you better give them adequate notice of the pending case against them.  

A recent memorandum decision from Division 2 of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Leveraged Land, Montgomery, v. Hodges, 2 CA-CV 2009-0057, deals with the issue of what happens in a tax lien foreclosure case where the owner of record has only been served by publication in a newspaper.   Memorandum decisions, while instructive for lawyers to consider how the courts may rule in a future case, unfortunately cannot be cited by as legal authority.  

In Hodges, the tax lien investor filed a complaint to foreclose the owner's (Hodges) right to redeem the tax lien.  The tax lien investor apparently was unable to serve Hodges personally and served Hodges by publication.  A default judgment was eventually entered against Hodges and the tax lien investor obtained a Treasurer's Deed and then sold the property.  Hodges later filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing in part that the judgment was void because he had "good cause" entitling him to a new trial.  The trial court denied his motion and Hodges appealed. 

Hodges argued in his appeal that he was "ready, willing, and able to redeem the property" and that entilted him to a new trial.  Under Rule 59(j)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, when a judgment has been entered on service by publication, and the defendant has not appeared, a new trial may be granted upon application of the defendant for good cause shown by affidavit, made within one year after the judgment has been entered.  Relying on a 1942 case that was very similar in facts, the appeals court held that because Hodges was "ready, willing and able to redeem the property," the trial court erred in not granting the new trial.  The court remanded the case back to the trial court stating that the trial court should give Hodges a new trial. 

After sending the case back to the trial court, Hodges paid off the property taxes after working with some third-party investor who took a partial legal interest in the property.  The tax lien investor appealed the new judgment of the trial court arguing that Hodges did not have the ability at the time of the original case to pay off the tax lien, which Hodges admitted he did not.  The appeals court went on to rule that "the end result of a successful Rule 59(j) challenge is the restoration of a defendant's right to redeem."  The appeals court, applying equitable principles, stated that "purchasing tax liens entails risk and the onus is on the purchaser to protect its own interests."  The Court also stated that the tax lien investor must understand that any default judgment obtained through service by publication is open to attack for a year, and the fact that the tax lien investor decided to sell the property before that time had run was their own fault. 

Warning tax lien investors: if you are going to get into the tax lien investment world; beware, as there are pitfalls that come up that late night infomercials do not tell you that. 

Warning attorneys: do your due diligence upfront and get people served personally. 

Additional warning attorneys: it seems pretty clear that the court does not look too favorably on tax lien investing. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Arizona legislature, probably with some good ol' vested interest prodding, provides a nice little mechanism to insulate tax lien investors from some of their down-side risk.  Under A.R.S. Section 42-18206, any person who redeems a tax lien after they have been personally served with a complaint seeking to foreclose their right to redeem then becomes responsible for the costs and reasonable attorney's fees that the investor instituting the action incurred.  Sometimes it is very difficult to get the owner of record or any other interested party in a given parcel, subject to a tax lien,  personally served.  Indeed, sometimes it is not possible to effect personal service in the way we normally think of people getting served - a process server handing the lawsuit to the person - because they are evading service or cannot be located despite diligent efforts.  Consequently, a person sometimes must be served by publishing a copy of the summons in a newspaper for four weeks in the county that the person is believed to live in and the property is located. 

In Richie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, Division I of the Arizona Court of Appeals faced the legal question of whether an award of attorney's fees and costs under A.R.S. Section 42-18206 may be triggered by initiating service of process via publication or is available only after completion of the publication process under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeals court ruled that the entitlement to an award under the statute requires completion of service.  The court reasoned that because the redemption occurred before the conditions to perfect service by publication were met, service of process was not actually complete.  Merely initiating service, but not completing service was not sufficient for an award of fees.   

I find it hard to believe that the trial court ruled the other way on this one.  It seems pretty clear that you need to actually complete service before you are entitled to fees. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

University of Arizona College of Law Professor Brent T. White has stirred quite a bit of controversy over his recent article in the Arizona Legal Studies entitled "Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis."  

His basic thesis is that despite the increasing number of homeowners walking away from their underwater mortgages, most homeowners continue to try and hold on to their homes even when it does not make economic sense to do so.  He suggests that homeowners choose to try and hold on to their homes to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure and because of the  "exaggerated anxiety" over the perceived consequences of a foreclosure created by "social control agents."  In short, he believes that underwater homeowners (in Arizona and California) are not knowingly making bad choices, they just can not "cognitively grasp" that they would be better off financially by simply walking away.  At the end of the day, argues White, many more underwater homeowners should be walking away from their mortgage obligations. 

As a justification for his thesis, White suggests that the "norms governing homeowner behavior stand in sharp contrast to norms governing lenders, who seek to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility. This norm asymmetry leads to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse."  

White argues that there are costs associated with walking away, but they are not outweighed by the financial benefits of a "strategic default."  While White's thesis is controversial, as it applies to Arizona borrowers, he is correct.  Arizona's anti-deficiency laws are incredibly broad and protect the large majority of borrowers who are now trying to keep pace with a subdivision home that is severely underwater.  Arizona's anti-deficiency statute (A.R.S. Section 33-814(G)) prevents lenders from pursuing a deficiency (the difference between the amount owed by the borrower and the price bid at a trustee's sale) against the borrower.  While a borrower's credit rating will undoubtedly take a severe beating from a foreclosure and the borrower may have to wait several years to obtain a federally guaranteed loan, for many underwater borrowers, the calculus leads to the undeniable conclusion that walking away makes the most financial sense. 

As for the moral aspect of walking away, White reasons that the overriding message to borrowers is that they have a moral responsibility to pay off their obligation.  White counters this message by pointing out that lenders are operating amorally according to market norms and could have acted to protect themselves by following prudent underwriting practices.  White's final point is that  "it is time to take morals out of the picture and search for an equitable solution to the negative equity problem."  While White is correct in many respects, had lenders and borrowers employed a stronger sense of morals when it came to underwriting and borrowing, we might not have experienced such a severe market bubble and attendant bust. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It seems that the small glimmer of hope that everyone is hoping for in the housing market is not likely to come anytime soon.  Mathew Padilla has posted an excellent blog article discussing that the discussion of another wave of foreclosure implies that the current wave has already receded.  Sam Khater, a senior economist with First American CoreLogic has stated: “To say there is a second wave implies the (current) wave has receded . . . I don’t see that the wave has receded.”

Call it what you will, the next foreclosure wave to hit will largely involve Pay Option ARMs.  Pay Option ARMs are adjustable rate mortgages on which the interest rate adjusts monthly and the payment adjusts annually, with borrowers offered options on how large a payment they will make. The options include interest-only, and a "minimum" payment that is usually less than the interest-only payment. The minimum payment option results in a growing loan balance, termed "negative amortization."  As Long and Foster's Ron Sitrin recently commented: because these loans "had negative amortization for so long, they can't refinance out of them and they cannot sell them because the loans are worth more than the properties themselves."

For the most part the expensive gated communities have avoided the impact of the current foreclosure wave, but its job loss consequences are coming home to roost in the upper income brackets.  This graph puts the Pay Option ARM problem in stark terms: 

As a recent post on Dr. Housing Bubble stated: "The Pay Option ARM is one of the most poorly construed mortgage product ever to face this planet. It was a pathetic attempt to allow a larger majority of Americans to have a piece of the great American credit ponzi scheme."  How's that for upbeat? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed into law Senate Bill 896, also known as the "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009."  Section 702 of that Act - the "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act" is very broad in scope and affects the ability of the new owner of certain foreclosure property (including Section 8 properties) to take immediate possession of that property. 

The new Act has effectively mandated a tenant-friendly "non-disturbance clause", common in commercial leases, into the residential landlord-tenant world.  The Act now requires landlords to provide tenants residing in foreclosed residential properties to be provided 90 days advance notice to vacate the property.  However, except where the purchaser intends to occupy a given property as the primary residence, the terms of any bona fide lease remains in effect.

A lease or tenancy must meet the following requirements to be a bona fide lease: (1) The tenant cannot be the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor; (2) The lease or tenancy must be the result of an arms-length transaction, and; (3) The rent required under the lease cannot be substantially less than fair market rent for the property or the rent is subsidized by a Federal, State or local subsidy. 

This is a watershed change in the law and now provides residential tenants protections that, though common in commercial leases, rarely have been seen in the residential context.  It also brings the law a small step closer to the long-past English feudal system of attornment, whereby a a new landlord had to obtain the consent of the tenant before becoming the new landlord.  Such a system was abolished in 1705, but it is clear that the pendulum is swinging towards tenant protections.  In light of the massive foreclosure wave that has swept this country, it is not surprising to see such a change.  A lot of unsuspecting tenants were left holding the bag after their landlord lost the property to foreclosure.  For what it is worth though, such a change is temporary.  The Act sunsets at the end of 2012. 
 

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

When I hear the term "cram down" authority in the bankruptcy context, I keep picturing some poor mortgage lender warily stepping into a bankruptcy judge's chambers only to have a long metal pipe shoved down his throat until the lender is willing to give in on a loan modification.  Only a month ago it appeared that bankruptcy judges were on their way to wielding such foie gras power. 

While a "cram down" bill made it through the House of Representatives in March, Senate Bill 61 met fierce resistance and failed to muster the necessary votes to pass.  Brett Weiss, a bankruptcy attorney in Maryland, provides some excellent insight in his article as to why Senate Bill 61 bill could not pass despite President Obama's apparent 100-day mandate clout and a Democratically controlled Congress.  One is left to wonder why President Obama, who supported such "cram down" authority was unwilling to use some of his political capital to see this one through.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky seemed to echo the standard line being floated by the likes of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., and Wells Fargo & Co, namely that the vote was "a bipartisan rejection of an interest-rate hike, which is exactly the wrong solution for jobs, homeowners and the economy." 

However, as Brett Weiss notes in his article, mortgage insurance was the real issue.  Mortgage insurance gives lenders a very strong incentive not to write down principal, and gives them more money if they foreclose, even where the property is sold at a significant loss, than to work to make the loan performing.  In the end it seems that saving the likes of the stronger financial institutions was more practical than forcing the likely failure of MGIC, RMIC and Genworth, mortgage insurers already on the ropes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the foreclosure wave has grown into a tsunami-like crisis, advocacy groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) have taken to the streets in campaigns to lobby legislators about implementing new regulations that will help stem the foreclosure crisis and curtail predatory lending.  When I left the Pima County courthouse yesterday, there was an ACORN protest taking place at the same time that a Trustee's Sale was going on.  An interesting contrast between ACORN's bullhorn calls to action and the trustee calling out bids. 

Unquestionably, the foreclosure epidemic has resulted in some very impassioned debate as to whether and how the government should act.  Rick Santelli's recent rant highlights just how impassioned this debate has become.  While Santelli's rant has garnered much of the media hype, Stuart Varney's recent interview with ACORN's Bertha Lewis demonstrates just how zealous some people have become at the prospect of the government aiding struggling homeowners, who many view as irresponsible.  Varney was incredulous at ACORN's suggestion that people on the verge of foreclosure should stay in their homes.

As always, the foreclosure epidemic is far more nuanced than many of the talking heads are willing to discuss.  Predatory lending certainly was in force and many people were not informed of what they were getting into.  Likewise, many, many people bought far more home than they could ever afford.  Only time will tell whether massive government intervention or the force of the market will prevail. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link