In Deere Credit, Inc. v. Cervantes Nurseries, LLC, the Court of Appeals recognized that a parallel bankruptcy proceeding involving multiple creditors is not the same “action” for purposes of RCW 61.12.120’s bar against a plaintiff foreclosing on a mortgage “while he is prosecuting any other action for the same debt or matter which is secured by the mortgage.
BACKGROUND
In a previous Alert that we published in July 2012 entitled “Michigan Court Authorizes Receiver Sale of Real Property Free and Clear of Redemption Rights,” we reported on a decision of a Michigan trial court in Ottawa County, Michigan permitting a state-court receiver to sell real property free and clear of a mortgagor’s redemption rights.
The New Jersey Appellate Court has recently ruled that a receiver can be sued for injuries sustained in a building under the receiver’s control. The case involved a dilapidated apartment building in Passaic and injuries sustained thirteen months after the receiver was appointed by judge overseeing the foreclosure case of the first mortgage holder. The receiver was charged with responsibility to collect rent; manage, insure and repair the premises; pay taxes and assessments; and “do all things necessary for the due care and proper management of the mortgaged premises.” Acco
A New York bankruptcy court recently rejected a debtor’s challenge to a consensual state court judgment (“Judgment”) in favor of mortgagee, General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”), that had accelerated a debt and obtained a prepetition foreclosure judgment against debtor, 410 East 92nd Street (the “Hotel”), in the amount of approximately $74 million. In re: Madison 92nd St. Associates LLC, 472 B.R. 189 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).
Commercial real estate foreclosures present a number of significant challenges to lenders, special servicers and their counsel that residential foreclosures do not. But residential foreclosures make up the vast majority of state courts’ foreclosure dockets, so the court system – including Judges and Master Commissioners – is often unfamiliar of the challenges associated with commercial foreclosures. This can result in delays, unnecessary expense and the associated frustration that invariably follows when a commercial real estate asset is tied up in Court.
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held in a published opinion that the appointment of a receiver for the benefit of a mortgagee who agreed to subordinate its mortgages was mandatory under Indiana law. PNC Bank, Nat’l Assoc. v. LA Dev., Inc., __ N.W.2d __, 2012 WL 3156539 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2012).
Like the common law of most other states, Michigan law generally grants to a court-appointed receiver a first priority claim in the receivership proceeding for payment of the receiver’s fees and expenses incurred in that proceeding. See, e.g., In re Dissolution of Henry Smith Floral Co., 260 Mich. 299, 244 N.W. 480 (1932); Cohen v. Cohen, 125 Mich. App. 206, 335 N.W.2d 661 (1983).
In Skov v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2102 WL 2549811 (June 8, 2012), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain a demurrer against plaintiff Andrea Skov’s second amended complaint, holding that she had stated a claim for violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5, which requires a lender to contact a defaulted borrower to discuss alternatives to foreclosure before starting a nonjudicial foreclosure by recording a notice of default.