According to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home-price index, U.S. home values have declined for six consecutive months, but cities like Phoenix, San Diego and Miami are seeing prices rise.
Arizona Republic: “Zipps Sports Grill has filed suit against the city, Planning and Development Department Director Debra Stark and Bethany 16th LLC, the owner and landlord of a central Phoenix shopping center where Zipps leases a location. The March 28 filing follows a months-long zoning battle involving a Z’Tejas restaurant proposed at the southwestern corner of 16th Street and Bethany Home Road.”
If you have been following my Real Estate Law Blog posts you may have already read about some of the recent legal developments related to foreclosures and short sales in Arizona. However, in light of a new Court of Appeals case just decided last month, I felt it was time for a summary of these recent developments.
Construction Loans and Home Improvement Loans:
A ruling last month by the Arizona Court of Appeals in the case of Helvetica Servicing Inc. v. Pasquan answers important questions in the law and may impact anti-deficiency protections for some people. This case involved the refinance of an original purchase money loan, in which the borrower was loaned additional funds. The additional funds were primarily used by the borrower: (1) to reconstruct a large portion of the home, and (2) for home improvements and related purposes.
The Court of Appeals ruled on several key issues that have been in dispute in Arizona. The Court laid out the following rules to follow when determining whether a refinanced loan or construction loan will be given purchase money status under Arizona law in certain situations and thus, afforded anti-deficiency protection in the judicial foreclosure context:
A refinance of a purchase money loan, whether by the original lender or a new lender, does NOT destroy purchase money protection to the extent the loan proceeds from the refinance are used to satisfy the underlying purchase money loan.
A construction loan given to borrower that is (1) secured by a deed of trust that covers both the land and the dwelling to be constructed on the land (provided the dwelling is a qualifying property under the anti-deficiency statute), and (2) actually used to construct the dwelling, will be afforded purchase money status and anti-deficiency protection under Arizona law.
- Loan proceeds given to a borrower in a refinance that are clearly not used to satisfy an underlying purchase money loan may be traced, segregated and recovered in a deficiency action. In other words, the lender can sue on the cash out portion of the loan.
The Court’s ruling in this particular case was in a judicial foreclosure deficiency context, but it provides guidance to borrowers and authority to lenders dealing with deficiency actions or actions on the junior note by junior lenders before or after a foreclosure sale by the senior lender. In other words, in cash out refinances or combined purchase money/HELOC loans in which the junior lender can trace the underlying purchase money and cash out components of the loan, the junior lender can sue on the cash out portion, but only on the cash out portion, of the loan.
As far as the Court’s treatment of home improvement loans, pool loans, and the like, the Court suggested that those loans would not get purchase money protection. The Court noted that the lender’s right to sue on these types of loans will be determined on a case by case basis.
At this point, we must wait to see whether the Court of Appeals’ decision is appealed to Arizona’s Supreme Court, but this ruling does clear up some of the uncertainty and confusion regarding lender rights to pursue a borrower for a deficiency on a non-purchase money loan.
Note that the Court’s decision does not affect a lender’s or borrower’s rights in a trustee’s sale foreclosure — a lender that forecloses its deed of trust at a trustee’s sale will be barred from seeking a deficiency against the borrower as long as the property is a qualifying dwelling under the statute — the loan does NOT have to be a purchase money loan.
Occupancy Requirement Under Arizona’s Anti-Deficiency Law:
The rule in Arizona has been that if the property had not been occupied and used as a dwelling, the borrower would not get anti-deficiency protection. As a result, lenders could pursue borrowers for a deficiency after a trustee’s sale or judicial foreclosure on homes under construction that had not been completed or occupied. However, late last year, the Arizona Court of Appeals in M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller expanded protections to borrowers who intended to occupy their new home, but were unable to do so.
In this case, a borrower took a construction loan to build a residence that, if it had been completed and actually utilized as a dwelling, would have received anti-deficiency protections after a trustee’s sale. The borrower was unable to complete construction, however, and no one ever actually moved into the home. The Court distinguished a prior holding of the Arizona Supreme Court and held that here, the borrower was a homeowner (as opposed to a commercial builder of residential properties as in the prior case), and the borrower had intended to occupy the dwelling upon completion of construction. This holding expands anti-deficiency protection to certain constructions loans and will be applied on a case by case basis.
While short sale results have been improving, the law has not been clear regarding short sales and, therefore, which has led to a veritable minefield for the homeowner/borrower. However, a bill recently introduced in the Arizona House of Representatives, House Bill 2584, would bar lenders from seeking a deficiency against certain borrowers following completion of a short sale. The bill is intended to cover loans that would get anti-deficiency protection if the property were to go into foreclosure. While some questions as to how the law will be applied need to be addressed, this law is a big step in the right direction.
By purchasing and holding tens of thousands of existing homes, investors have created a demand where little had existed and drastically reduced the inventory of homes for sale, which has helped boost prices over the past six months. The investors’ goal is to buy and rent out a large portfolio of homes and collect monthly lease revenue until home prices increase to significantly higher than what the investors paid, at which time they will sell the homes.
This snatching up of homes by investors makes it nearly impossible for traditional homebuyers in certain neighborhoods to acquire an existing home without paying a premium to an investor, but it also raises serious concerns about what will happen to the housing market when all those investors decide to sell. The concerns about the destabilizing effect investor dominance in the housing market could have on local communities has led to programs designed to help offset this negative effect.
Fannie Mae, the first bank-owned home seller to express concerns about this destabilizing effect has implemented a program called First Look, which prohibits investors from bidding on Fannie Mae-owned homes for the first 15 days after they are listed for sale. Read more…
Arizona Republic: “Homeowners do not lose their legal protections against being sued for debt after foreclosure just because they have refinanced a mortgage, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. In a unanimous decision, the judges overturned a lower- court ruling that said Michael and Kelly Pasquan are liable for more than $1.9 million. That is the difference between what they owed on their mortgage and the value of the home when sold.”
Arizona Republic: The newspaper created an online searchable calculator to determine home values in Maricopa, County, Arizona. “Click on any ZIP code on the map for statistics about home sales trends, or use the search box below. Our home sales information includes median sales prices for single-family houses in Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe and other Valley of the Sun cities in Maricopa and Pinal counties.”
AZCentral: Alaska has a reality show about ice truckers trying to survive deadly hauls. New York has Donald Trump’s cutthroat competition to be his apprentice. And Georgia has Billy the Exterminator, who battles rodents and alligators.
Soon, Phoenix will be the setting for a new reality show about one of the region’s most competitive and heart-racing activities – bidding on foreclosure homes.
Agents who work at Maricopa County’s foreclosure auctions are in negotiations to appear on the show, which is planned to start airing on the Discovery Channel next year.
New York-based Sharp Entertainment, producer of the show, also created “Punkin Chunkin” for the Discovery Channel, “Man vs. Food” for the Travel Channel and “Extreme Couponing” for TLC.
Now, cameras will be filming outside the county courthouse in downtown Phoenix.
ABA Journal: As the housing market continues to slide, the U.S. government is considering a mortgage refinancing plan and other options to help struggling homeowners.
Many homeowners have been unable to refinance because they are underwater on their mortgages or their credit rating is tainted. Specifics of the plan are unclear, but it would allow some homeowners with government-backed mortgages to refinance at today’s lower rates, the New York Times reports. The hope is that the money saved will be spent elsewhere, helping to shore up the economy.
Phoenix Business Journal: New data from Arizona State University show foreclosures are becoming a smaller portion of the total home transactions in the Phoenix area. The report from ASU’s W.P. Carey School of Business shows foreclosures represented about 35 percent of the existing home transactions in the Phoenix area in May. That continued a decline from 43 percent in January and February, to 38 percent in March, to 36 percent in April.
AZ Central: When the Legislature passed a law in 2010 attempting to forbid cities from collecting delinquent water bills from landlords with four or fewer rental units, several cities found ways to still hold landlords accountable.
So the Arizona Association of Realtors, the lobbyists behind the bill, went back to the Legislature in the past session and got House Bill 2193 passed.
Tom Farley, CEO and lobbyist for the Realtors association, said the new legislation, which mostly holds whoever lives on the property responsible for water bills, was necessary because some cities did “an end run” around the 2010 legislation.