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

Let's start out with this - I'm incensed today.  The newest cottage industry to crop up in the wake of the foreclosure tsunami are the loan modifiers.  Many of the most notorious loan modification companies were headed by the same individuals that were all to happy to originate loans that never should have been considered in the go-go days of the real estate bubble bath.  Now, there may be some legit people out there really trying to help out with loan modifications, including some attorneys perhaps, but most do not require money upfront and promise things they can't deliver on.

I met with someone today who just came from the courthouse steps after learning that his home had been sold at a trustee's sale.  He showed up at the sale with all the money necessary (so he thought at least) to reinstate his loan.  No can do.  The problem for him is that under Arizona's lender-friendly statutory scheme for trustee's sales, he was required to come forward with payment by 5pm the day before the trustee's sale.  He didn't know that because the average person on the street would have no reason to know that - that is what we attorneys are apparently for. 

The reason I am incensed is that many in the loan modification industry (and many lawyers for that matter), don't understand the law or the dynamics of how servicers are processing loan modifications.  It is well established that the servicers of loans have their own financial interest at heart when it comes to loan modifications and they are not too terribly interested in saving people from foreclosure.  Indeed, the loan servicers, who often have competing interests to the very investors that own the loans, don't much care whether they foreclose or not, as they get paid.  In the end, loan modifications are expensive, time consuming and do not pad the servicers' bottom line, and the servicers run a parallel track of claiming to consider a loan modification and moving along the foreclosure at the same time.  See Diane Thompson's very well researched and explained article on why servicers foreclose rather than modify loans.  It is a relative expose on the lending industry. 

Had the loan modification company that was supposedly trying to help this individual understood the law and the dynamics of how servicers lull borrowers into the trap of believing that a modification is forthcoming, while processing the foreclosure at the same time, this company would have known that this guy needed to come due with the money the day before the sale or attempt to stop the sale if he had a defense.  This company falsely believed that the modfication was coming too - a big mistake.  This guy paid $1,500 and lost his house.  A quick trip to an attorney could have saved this fiasco.  We need more education out there - that is for certain.  Sad day - yet another preventable foreclosure.

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

In one of my prior blog posts (April 6, 2010 - "Tax Lien Foreclosure: Ready, Willing, and Able to Redeem"), I wrote about an unpublished Memorandum Decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2 - Leveraged Land, Montgomery, v. Hodges, 2 CA-CV 2009-0057.  In that Decision, the Court overturned a default judgment that a tax lien investor had obtained through service by publication in a newspaper, which restored the owner of record's ability to pay off the delinquent property taxes.  Service by publication is often the only way to notify someone about a pending lawsuit, because in many cases all efforts to personally serve someone prove unsuccessful.  Because service by publication is not the preferred manner of serving defendants, the courts allow a default judgment that is obtained through serving a defendant by publication to be challenged for up to a year after the judgment is obtained. 

In the Leveraged Land case, even though service by publication was warranted, the Court, based on prior precedent, ruled that the owner of record, because he was ready, willing, and able to pay off the tax lien, should be entitled to do so.  Additionally, the Court ruled that the tax lien investor must understand that any default judgment obtained through service by publication is open to attack for up to a year, and the fact that the tax lien investor later decided to sell the property to a third-party before that time period had run was their own fault.

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued a written Opinion stemming from the same litigation.  In this set of appeals, the Court was faced with two primary issues on appeal: (1) were Appellants Raven II Holdings, LLC ("Raven"), Hanna 120 Holdings, LLC ("Hanna"), and Bingham Arizona Land, LLC ("Bingham"), the subsequent purchaser of the property from Leveraged Land, LLC,  "bona fide purchasers" of the property that was the subject of the tax lien foreclosure case? and (2) was Leveraged Land entitled to recover all of its attorneys' fees under A.R.S. Section 42-18206. 

A "bona fide purchaser" is used to refer to one who purchases property for value with notice.  Regarding the issue of whether Raven, Hanna, and Bingham were "bona fide purchasers," the Court held that because Leveraged Land properly recorded the Treasurer's Deed and the Default Judgment was attached to it, all subsequent purchasers were given "constructive notice" that the Default Judgment was subject to legal challenge, and "the risk of disruptions to any subsequent conveyances of the foreclose property fell squarely on" Leveraged Land and its successors.

Leveraged Land appealed the trial court's award to it of attorney's fees in the amount of $1,500.00. The trial court ruled that the amount of attorney's fees that Leveraged Land requested was "unreasonable," though it provided no basis for such a determination.  Leveraged Land argued on appeal that such an award was arbitrary and had no reasonable basis, especially when it had already been determined by the Court of Appeals that service was done correctly, thus entitling Leveraged Land to recovery of its fees if the owner of record later redeemed, which is what Hodges did in this case.  Hodges, who was permitted to redeem the tax lien, argued that Leveraged Land was not entitled to attorney's fees it incurred in opposing his redemption.  The Court ruled that, over a dissenting opinion, a plain reading of A.R.S. 42-18206 leads to the conclusion that Leveraged Land is entitled to recover its attorney's fees even if it was eventually unsuccessful in its appeal on the issue of whether Hodges was entitled to redeem the tax lien.  The Court of Appeals, ruling that the trial court had abused its discretion, has remanded the case back to the trial court for a determination of the amount of attorney's fees that Leveraged Land is entitled to.

One has to wonder just how much the subject property was worth in order to justify the level of expenditures in the underlying case, which resulted in three different appeals.  In the end, the Court of Appeals made it clear that A.R.S. Section 42-18206 is unambiguous and permits a party to recover its attorney's fees if the owner of record redeems a tax lien after proper service of process, and will leave it to the trial courts to determine what fees are "reasonable."  

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