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

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

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

What do the traditional Japanese Ninja and the the American Ninja have in common? Both destablize and cause social chaos. While traditional Ninjas allegedly intended to destabilize and cause social chaos in enemy territory or against opposing rules, the American Ninja never intended to do anything but make money.

The American Ninja is actually an acronym, which stands for (N)o (I)ncome, (N)o (J)ob, no (A)ssets. Apparently, HCL Finance, who dubs itself "Home of the No Doc Loan," coined the term during the go-go days of the real estate bubble. Indeed, this "innovative product," like so many others, was a driving force in the boom.

So, combine Salomon Brothers' Lewis Ranieri's idea of buying mortgages, bundling them, and issuing bonds with the bundles as collateral and the Ninja loan, and we have the perfect recipe for disaster. The US housing market is far from bottom and the effects of ridiculous lending practices will continue to be felt for some time to come.

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

Once an investor has owned a tax lien certificate of purchase for at least three years since it was first offered for sale by the given county, the investor may seek to foreclose the right of the property owner to redeem the tax lien. Arizona's statutes (A.R.S. Section 42-18201, et seq.) govern the foreclosure process.

Specifically, Arizona Revised Statute Section 42-18201 requires that at least thirty days before filing an action to foreclose the right to redeem, the tax lien holder must send a notice of intent to file a foreclosure to the property owner. Section 42-18201 specifies exactly how that is to be done.

The recent Arizona Court of Appeals case of Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (App. 2007), has added to the due diligence necessary to successfully foreclose the right of a property owner to redeem a tax lien. In Roberts, the Roberts purchased two tax liens for property located in Mohave County, Arizona. The Roberts later sued the owner of record, Phyllis V. Johnson, the Mohave County Treasurer, various fictitious parties, and the "unknown heirs of any of" them "if they be deceased" to foreclose their right to redeem the tax liens.

After attempting personal service on Johnson, the Roberts discovered that Johnson had died. A son of Johnson, was served on Johnson's behalf and subsequently entered into an arrangement with the Roberts whereby they would obtain a default judgment without any subsequent assessment of fees or costs against Johnson or the son. The Roberts later obtained a default judgment barring Johnson or any person claiming title "under" her from asserting any right, title, or interest in an tot he property subject to the tax lien.

A year later, Tim Roberts appeared, claimed to be the son of and heir of Johnson, and argued that as an heir, he had a right to redeem the tax liens. He then moved for a new trial and asked the trial court to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the default judgment was void because he had not been personally served or served by publication.

The issue presented to the Court of Appeals was whether Johnson's heir had a right to redeem a tax lien. The Court of Appeals ruled that because Tim Roberts was Johnson's rightful heir, he a right to redeem. The Court also ruled that only those parties who are joined in a foreclosure action may have their rights to redeem foreclosed. Thus, ruled the Court, the Roberts need to join Tim Roberts as a defendant in their foreclosure action and obtain a judgment against him to foreclose his right to redeem.

The Court also set the standard for what level of due diligence and due process will be required in a tax lien foreclosure action in Arizona. Depending on the circumstances, the Court ruled that a tax lien holder may need to examine public records, or may need to ask relatives, friends, or the neighbors of the deceased property owner about the existence of heirs. In the end, the Court stated that whether service by publication is constitutionally sufficient will turn on the facts of the particular case, and it would not attempt to set forth a rule that will fit each circumstance.

This case clearly sets a due diligence and due process standard, but leaves it up to the circumstances of each case to dictate what efforts will justify service by publication. Indeed, the Court rejected the Roberts' contention that they did serve Tim Roberts as an "unknown heir." The Court stated that the record contained no evidence of what steps, if any, the Roberts took to identify and locate Johnson's heirs before attempting service by publication.

The message is clear - if the property owner has died, some efforts must be made to locate the heirs of the deceased property owner before service by publication will be deemed appropriate under the circumstances. This decision clearly will place a heightened burden on tax lien investors and will undoubtedly increase the cost of successfully foreclosing the right to redeem. It will be interesting to see if future court decisions spell out in greater detail what level of due diligence and due process will be required. Until then, investors beware - do your due diligence.

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

In cases involving real property, a plaintiff often will file what is called a "lis pendens," which is Latin for suit pending. The purpose of filing a lis pendens is to secure a plaintiff's claim on a property so that a sale, mortgage, or encumbrance of the property will not diminish the plaintiff's rights to the property, should the plaintiff prevail in its case.

The practical effect of filing a lis pendens is to alert a potential purchaser of the property in dispute that the property's title is in question, which obviously makes the property a whole lot less attractive to any potential buyer. In other words, once the lis pendens is recorded, it serves to place a cloud on the title to the property in question until the lawsuit is resolved and the notice is released or expunged. More importantly, the lis pendens has the effect of preventing most lenders and title companies from lending money on the security of land that is subject to a lis pendens.

Arizona's lis pendens statute is found in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-1191(A), which states in part that in "an action affecting title to real property, the plaintiff at the time of filing the complaint, or thereafter, . . . may file in the office of the recorder of the county in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action or defense." A recent decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals in Sante Fe Ridge Homeowners' Association v. Carla Bartschi discussed under what circumstances does an action affect title to real property.

In Sante Fe, the Sante Fe Homeowners' Association filed a complaint against Carla Bartschi alleging breache of contract and sought injunctive relief for Bartschi's alleged violations of the Association's CC&R's. Sante Fe alleged that Bartschi had failed to maintain the landscaping on her property. In conjunction with its lawsuit, Sante Fe filed a lis pendens against Bartschi's property. Bartschi answered Sante Fe's complaint and filed a counter claim for wrongful recordation of the lis pendens, and sought statutory damages , attorney's fees, and costs under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 33-420(A). The trial court eventually granted Bartschi's request for statutory damages, ruling that Sante Fe's action did not affect title to real property and the lis pendens was prematurely recorded.

On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Sante Fe's action did not affect rights incident to title to real property. The court reasoned that a "lawsuit affects a right incident to title if any judgment would expand, restrict, or burden a property onwer's rights as bestowed by virtue of that title." The Court ruled that Sante Fe's recordation of the lis pendens was premature because at the time it recorded the lis pendens no basis existed to conclude that a lien would be imposed on real property. If Sante Fe had obtained a lien against Bartschi, a basis may have existed to conclude that Sante Fe's action affected title to real property.

As a practitioner, it is nice to have additional guidance from the courts on issues like these, but it is troubling to think how much Sante Fe was willing to pay to appeal the decision. I have to wonder if the Association members were aware of Sante Fe's decision to appeal the trial court's ruling, and whether they would have allowed the Board to authorize the appeal if they knew how much money the Association stood to lose if Sante Fe lost on appeal, which in large part they did.

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