The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying New York law, has held that an inadequate consideration exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for a lawsuit arising out of a debt restructuring transaction. Delta Financial Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Ins. Co. (In re Delta Financial Corp.), 2010 WL 1784054 (3d Cir. May 5, 2010).

With the recent decline in housing and real estate generally, companies in the homebuilding and construction markets face serious challenges. Some projects have already been forced into Chapter 11 and others will almost certainly require either a bankruptcy filing or out-of-court restructure. In the event a bankruptcy is filed, vendors, contractors, subcontractors and other interested parties should be aware of the impact of important bankruptcy code provisions on their relationship with troubled companies.

Automatic Stay

REDMOND v. FIFTH THIRD BANK (October 20, 2010)

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed the dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on res judicata and the statute of limitations, holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association and its progeny controlled.

In so ruling, the Court confirmed that a second foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations or res judicata where continuing payment defaults occurred within the five years preceding the filing of the second foreclosure action. 

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit recently held that a condominium unit owners association did not violate a debtor’s Chapter 7 discharge order by scheduling a sheriff’s sale to complete a prepetition foreclosure.

Rejecting the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the in rem foreclosure sale was scheduled to induce payment of discharged pre-petition condominium fees, the Sixth Circuit BAP noted that “all foreclosure litigation potentially can induce payments of discharged debt to avoid a foreclosure sale.”

• A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion.
• Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions.

In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that where the beneficiary of a land trust filed a motion to intervene in a foreclosure, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene because the beneficiary filed the motion after the trial court had entered the order confirming the foreclosure sale.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to the Opinion.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that, when debt on promissory note secured by mortgage has been discharged in bankruptcy, the holder of the note may not pursue collection against the maker of note, but the mortgagee has standing to foreclose on the collateral property, and can use the amounts due on the note as evidence to establish that it may collect from the forced sale of the property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently rejected an attempt by homeowners to collaterally attack a state court mortgage foreclosure judgment, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of an amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but on alternative grounds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a case based on a final foreclosure order entered in Texas state court, and that the borrowers’ due process rights were not violated where the state court entered a foreclosure order without first having a hearing, in violation of the state statute.