In February the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held in Crane v.
In In re Crane, the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that a mortgage can be avoided in bankruptcy if it fails to include the maturity date and the interest rate of the underlying debt within the mortgage document. The court found that failing to include these loan terms on the face of the mortgage as recorded, violated the requirements of Illinois conveyancing statutes, and therefore did not provide the constructive notice to the trustee necessary for preventing the avoidance.
In a decision that potentially has serious implications for mortgage financing transactions in Illinois, the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that a mortgage is avoidable in bankruptcy if it fails to include the maturity date and the interest rate of the underlying debt within the mortgage document as recorded. In re Crane, Case No. 11-90592, U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Ill., February 29, 2012; Supplemental Opinion and Order, April 5, 2012.
Introduction
In a ruling on February 29, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois allowed a bankruptcy trustee to avoid an Illinois mortgage as to other creditors of the estate because the mortgage failed to expressly state the maturity date of and interest rate on the underlying debt (In Re Crane, Case 11-90592, U.S. Dist Ct, C.D. IL, February 29, 2012).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that an Illinois mortgage is subject to avoidance in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) unless the mortgage contains among other things, (i) the amount of the debt, (ii) the maturity date of the debt, and (iii) the underlying interest rate. Richardson v. The Gifford State Bank (In re Crane), Adv. Pro. No. 11-9067 (Bankr. C.D. Ill.).
As seen in the Spring 2012 issue of West Virginia Banker.
In the wake of the national attention directed towards residential mortgages in the last few years, certain revisions were made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to address perceived deficiencies in bankruptcy proofs of claim. The rule changes were first proposed in 2009 by the Judicial Conference of the United States and became effective December 1, 2011.
A proposed bill entitled the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act and recently introduced to the Senate for the State of Michigan would regulate the use and enforceability of certain loan covenants in non-recourse commercial transactions. Presumably, the bill, Senate Bill No. 992 introduced on Feb. 29, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Economic Development, is in reaction to a recent decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals finding a guarantor liable for a deficiency claim notwithstanding the non-recourse nature of the loan. See Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall Ltd.
Bankruptcy Rule changes, effective December 1, 2011, require mortgage holders and servicers to include additional documentation supporting proofs of claim filed in individual debtor cases. Mortgage holders and servicers must follow these rules or face sanctions and potential loss of the right to present the omitted documentation as evidence in subsequent proceedings.
According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release, the federal government and 49 state attorneys general have reached a $25 billion settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims over alleged mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. If reports are correct, the agreement, which Attorney General Holder called the “the largest joint federal-state settlement ever obtained,” compels the mortgage servicers to adhere to extensive new servicing standards and provides considerable financial relief for homeowners.