Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Debtor appealed an order of the bankruptcy court sustaining the chapter 7 trustee's objection to debtor's claimed homestead exemption. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court identified debts debtor incurred prior to October 2007, when the property at issue became his homestead. Debtor had not challenged that finding on appeal. Pursuant to Iowa Code 561.21(1), therefore, the house could be sold to satisfy those debts, notwithstanding debtor's claimed homestead exemption. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order.

In 2005, Defendants-Appellants Robert and Shelly Heath executed a promissory note in favor of Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) which was secured by a mortgage. Defendants defaulted on the note in 2008. Plaintiff-Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-4 Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-4 (Appellee), filed its petition to foreclose. Attached to the Petition was a copy of the note, mortgage and assignment of the mortgage. The note contained neither an indorsement nor an attached allonge. The assignment of mortgage was made by Option One Mortgage Corporation to Appellee and was dated February 28, 2008. It did not purport to transfer the note. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment and Appellants did not respond. The judgment was granted in rem and in personam against Appellants. The property was sold at a sheriff's sale, and a motion to confirm the sale was filed on the same day. A day before the hearing to confirm the sale, Appellants filed for bankruptcy. In the pendency of the sale confirmation proceedings, Appellants obtained new counsel, and filed a motion to vacate the confirmation hearing. They alleged the bank did not prove it was entitled to enforce the note or to foreclose. The bank responded that because Appellants had their personal liabilities discharged in the bankruptcy, they no longer held any interest in the foreclosed property. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the bank with its unindorsed note did not prove that it was entitled to foreclose. The Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Debtor borrowed from Arvest to purchase a newly-constructed home, executing a promissory note and mortgage. After debtor filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief, Arvest then purchased the mortgaged property at a foreclosure sale for substantially less than what debtor owed on the promissory note and filed this adversary proceeding, seeking a judgment declaring the mortgage debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2) and (4). At trial, the bankruptcy court directed a verdict for debtor on the section 523(a)(2) claim but concluded that $65,000 of the remaining debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4) because debtor held that amount of settlement proceedings in a fiduciary capacity created by section 4-58-105(b)(2) of the Arkansas Code. The BAP reversed and Arvest appealed. The court agreed with the BAP that the statute did not create the requisite fiduciary relationship, and that debtor was not guilty of embezzlement within the meaning of section 523(a)(4), affirming the judgment.

The Supreme Court was asked to respond to a certified question posed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The question arose out of an adversary proceeding in which the plaintiff, in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee, sought to assert his "strong arm" powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) to avoid the defendants' security interest in the debtor's property and to recover the property for the benefit of the estate. At the time the bankruptcy petition was filed, the defendants' security interest was documented in a deed of trust that was recorded and properly indexed in the City and County of Denver, where the encumbered property is located. The recorded deed identified the encumbered property by a correct and complete street address and expressly referred to an attached legal description of the property. The recorded deed, however, omitted the referenced attachment. The Trustee contended that because the recorded deed of trust did not contain a legal description of the encumbered property, it failed to provide sufficient notice of the defendants' security interest to a subsequent purchaser of the property under sections 38-35-109(1) and 38-35-122, C.R.S. (2011). The Supreme Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, actual knowledge could not be imputed to the trustee, and the deed of trust did not otherwise provide sufficient notice of the defendant's security interest in the debtor's property. The supreme court answered the certified question in the negative and returned the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado for further proceedings.

In 2007, Debtor purchased a manufactured home, borrowing the funds from Creditor and granting a security interest. Creditor filed an application for first title and a title lien statement in Whitley County, Kentucky. The seller of the manufactured home is located in Whitley County. Debtor resided at the time in Laurel County, Kentucky. Later, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet issued a Certificate of Title for the Manufactured Home showing the lien as being filed in Whitley County. In 2010, Debtor filed his voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The Chapter 7 Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court avoided the lien, 11 U.S.C. 544. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The statute requires that title lien statements be filed in the county of the debtor’s residence even if the initial application for certificate of title or registration is filed in another county under KRS 186A.120(2)(a).

Debtors began development of a subdivision and entered into a construction loan agreement with Bank Lenders, who retained a lien on substantially all of Debtors' assets. Debtors subsequently borrowed from Cornerstone, which similarly received liens and later agreed to subordinate the claims to that of Bank Lenders. After selling approximately a quarter of the planned units, Debtors filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11. The final plan of reorganization, confirmed by the court, specified that claims of Cornerstone would be secured to the extent determined by the court and included a budget that anticipated full payment of both Bank Lenders and Cornerstone; unsecured claimants would receive about 45 percent. The court valued Cornerstone's claims, using fair market value of the project on the plan confirmation date, rather than potential use and disposition value. Because the amount due Bank Lenders exceeded that value plus the value of other assets, no collateral remained to secure Cornerstone's claims; Cornerstone was treated as unsecured. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Bankruptcy Court properly accepted the valuation because it overcame the presumed validity and amount of the Cornerstone’s secured claims. Cornerstone did not prove that secured claims were worth more than the valuation indicated.

This case arose when petitioners filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy and then sold their farm. Under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, farmer debtors could treat certain claims owed to a governmental unit resulting from the disposition of farm assets as dischargeable, unsecured liabilities. 11 U.S.C. 1222(a). The Court held that federal income tax liability resulting from petitioners' post-petition farm sale was not "incurred by the estate" under 11 U.S.C. 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus was neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.

Debtor appealed an order of the bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay to Bank of the West. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court properly granted relief from the automatic stay to Bank of the West to exercise its rights under state law with respect to real property that it purchased at a foreclosure sale. The court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court where Bank of the West was a "party in interest" under Bankruptcy Code 362(d) and where the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it granted relief from the stay to Bank of the West for "cause."

A Trustee was appointed in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The estate included 44 lots, subdivided and zoned for mobile homes. Lot 45 contained an assisted living facility. The lots shared infrastructure and were subject to restrictions, including one prohibiting transfer of lots for construction of residences and requiring that title remain in the developer. GCL purchased Lot 45. The township solicitor agreed and the Bankruptcy Court declared the sale free of the restriction. The Trustee discovered that some residents had affixed mobile homes to the land. To resolve the matter, the Trustee agreed to sell lots to the residents. The trustee and the township entered agreement, abrogating the restriction as to the lots. CGL, not a party to that agreement, alleged that the sales damaged its property interests in Lot 45 and that the agreement deprived CGL of its property rights without notice and without due process of law. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the claims were not frivolous and could be filed in state court. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Barton doctrine, which requires a party seeking to sue a court-appointed receiver, to obtain leave of the appointing court, continues to apply to bankruptcy trustees.

Plaintiff's bank, Firstar, erroneously dishonored her check for her April 2002 monthly mortgage payment to Aames. Firstar issued an "official check" to Aames on April 8, 2002 but also failed to honor that check. Aames notified plaintiff of default on April 20 and assessed a late fee. Firstar ultimately honored her personal check as well as one of two official checks, resulting in two mortgage payments received for the month of April. Plaintiff did not submit a payment for May. Aames sent notice that it had assigned the mortgage to Ocwen, which began dunning plaintiff and her husband, who is not a co-borrower, for the May payment, despite proof of the double payment. No assignment was recorded. Ocwen made endless collection calls, despite cease and desist requests and registry on the federal “Do Not Call” directory; threatened foreclosure; assessed late fees; and reported derogatory information to the credit reporting agencies. Plaintiffs alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The district court dismissed, concluding that neither defendant was covered under the Act as neither was a debt collector. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that defendants cannot "have it both ways."