Earlier this month, we reported to you on the bipartisan legislation introduced in the Michigan Legislature known as the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act (the “Act”).
The Act has been approved overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Michigan Legislature and will be presented to the Governor’s office for signature. It is expected that the legislation will be signed into law within the next several business days.
Recent court decisions in the state of Michigan—Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall, ____ N.W.2d _____, 2011 WL 6785393 (Mich.App. 2011) (Cherryland) in the Michigan intermediate appellate court and 51382 Gratiot Avenue Holdings Inc. v. Chesterfield Development Company, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142404 (E.D. Mi. Dec.
In a recent Michigan Court of Appeals case, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. vs. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership et al., (2011 WL 6795393), the court found that the borrower’s violation of a solvency covenant triggered the conversion of the borrower’s and guarantor’s non-recourse obligations to full- recourse obligations. In light of the decision, when negotiating a non-recourse loan, parties would be well advised to pay close attention to the recourse covenants and to be very clear about which covenants, if breached, would trigger full recourse.
Background
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.
In Wells Fargo Bank Northwest v. US Airways, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 52188(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Dec. 1, 2011), Justice Bernard J. Fried held that a liquidated damages provision requiring payment of a holdover fee equal to twice the monthly rent was reasonable and did not function as a penalty under New York contract law. The case arose from three aircraft sale and leaseback transactions, pursuant to which Defendant US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), sold to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Northwest (“Wells Fargo”), and Wells Fargo leased back to US Airways, three Boeing 737 aircraft.
Dissatisfied with the ongoing multistate and federal efforts to reach a settlement agreement with major U.S. banks over unlawful foreclosure practices, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley indicated that her office was independently preparing to file several lawsuits. A number of U.S. states, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, have accused the five largest mortgage servicers, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial and Wells Fargo & Co., of failing to follow proper foreclosure procedures.
In Providence Hall Associates Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Fourth Circuit denied plaintiff’s attempt to receive a second bite at the apple, finding that plaintiff’s lawsuit was appropriately dismissed by the district court on res judicata grounds.
A federal bankruptcy judge has ordered Wells Fargo to pay $250,000 in sanctions for its role as a trustee for a pooled subprime mortgage trust. In re: Nosek, Case No. 02-46025-JBR (Bankr. D. Mass.).
Adjustable rate mortgages began to reset just as the economic outlook for subprime borrowers soured. Defaults on subprime debt inevitably followed. The onslaught of litigation against all players in the subprime lending arena followed just as inevitably.