A decision out of the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the “District Court”), now being appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, highlights just how critical it is for lenders to strictly comply with local recording requirements when recording their liens. In SunTrust Bank N.A. v. Northen, 433 B.R. 532 (M.D.N.C. Aug.
In yet another attack on Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California has refused to allow the assignee of a deed of trust (DOT) to regain possession of a home on which it had foreclosed where the assignment had not been recorded.
The second priority lien held by a junior lien holder is a property interest sufficient to trigger the protection of the automatic stay.In re Three Strokes L.P., 379 B.R. 804 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2008). Inasmuch as a senior lien holder’s foreclosure proceedings would have the effect of extinguishing the debtor’s second lien interest, a court may only lift the stay and permit the foreclosure to proceed upon such senior lien holder’s showing of adequate protection.
A theme running through many apparent-authority cases is the question of who loses: for example, the LLC whose property was used to secure unauthorized, personal borrowings by a member or manager, or the bank that in good faith made the loan to the malefactor? Often the recipient of the funds has used the money for personal matters and is essentially judgment proof.
In re Betchan, 524 B.R. 830 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2015) –
A mortgagee was the highest bidder at a foreclosure sale that took place shortly before the debtor filed bankruptcy. The lender requested relief from the automatic stay in order to evict the debtor on the basis that transfer of the property was completed prepetition so that it was not part of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
On October 31, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit interpreted Maryland law in ruling that a bank’s security interest in a Chapter 11 debtor’s property created by a deed of trust that was executed before, but recorded after, the Internal Revenue Service filed a tax lien, had priority over the tax lien.
Background
In re Burcam Capital II, LLC, Case No. 12-04729-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Feb. 15, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
As the financial and housing markets headed toward freefall in September of 2008, an enterprising homeowner named Kyung Ha Chung applied for two loans, from two lenders, to be secured by two deeds of trust against her house. The problem was, she didn’t tell the two lenders about each other, and signed the two deeds of trust on the same day, before two different notaries.
How The Problem Arose: Document Batches Recorded Together
Two significant changes were made to the Virginia recording tax statutes applicable to deeds of trusts during the 2012 session of the General Assembly. First, the exemption from recording taxes for deeds of trust whose purpose is to refinance an existing debt with the same lender was eliminated. Second, on deeds of trust securing debt in excess of the fair market value of the real estate, the recording tax now may be paid on the value of the property conveyed rather than the amount of the debt.
As real estate-related bankruptcy filings remain steady, courts continue to see debtors challenging the validity of deeds of trust and mortgages due to minor scriveners’ errors. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina is viewed by debtors as a favorable venue in which to bring such challenges due to a string of prior rulings starting with In re Head Grading in 2006, which invalidated a North Carolina deed of trust that incorrectly cited the date of the related note by one day. The latest chapter in this saga involves an effort by a