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

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