Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The debtor's single asset is a commercial building. The lender promptly started foreclosure proceedings in state court, prevailed, and a foreclosure sale of the property was scheduled, but was stayed when the debtor filed for bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(4). The lender became a participant in the bankruptcy The bankruptcy court rejected the debtor's plan to exchange the mortgage for an "indubitable equivalent," lifted the stay, and dismissed the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the lender has waited years to enforce its lien and that the court was not required to further stretch the wait. The lien on Treasury bonds proposed by the debtor would not be equivalent to the lender retaining its lien on the building.

Vegas Diamond and Johnson Investments appealed from the district court's order granting the Ex Parte Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order filed by the FDIC as receiver for La Jolla Bank. The district court determined that 12 U.S.C. 1821(j), the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 precluded a court from enjoining the FDIC from conducting a trustee's sale of the real properties. The court held that the appeal was moot because the real properties were sold during the pendency of the appeal.

The debtors bought their house in 1994 and, after a Chapter 7 discharge in 2004, refinanced. The loan closed in California, although the house was in Michigan, and the debtors signed a note, but did not sign a mortgage. The loan was funded and assigned to appellant. A few months later, they filed a Chapter 13 petition and the lender produced a recorded mortgage, ostensibly signed by the debtors in Michigan. The Bankruptcy Court found that the signatures were forged. On remand from the district court, it imposed an equitable mortgage on the house. The district court reversed, finding the mortgage void ab initio. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly considered the issue, held that the mortgage was void, and declined to impose an equitable mortgage because the assignee is subject to the defense of unclean hands, as was the original lender.

Debtors borrowed $157,291.77, secured by their home and took a second loan for $15,870, using their truck as security. They filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and signed a reaffirmation agreement committing to pay those two debts. They stopped making payments; the truck had been stolen. The bank filed an unsecured claim. The trustee sought to avoid the mortgage as not properly perfected; the matter was resolved by agreement. The bank bought the property at auction, re-sold it at a profit of $33,400 and filed an unsecured claim for the full balance of the mortgage. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim; the bank received a total of about $37,000 in payments as an unsecured creditor on the two loans. The bank then sued the debtors in Kentucky state court, seeking about $89,000 on the real property loan and about $11,500 on the truck loan. The bankruptcy court reopened the case and voided the reaffirmation agreement on the ground of mutual mistake because the parties signed the agreement based on the false assumption that the bank held secured interests in the real property and the truck, which would have allowed debtors (rather than the bankruptcy estate) to retain ownership. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed.

In 1999 Debtor borrowed $75,558.93 secured by a recorded mortgage lien, encumbering real property and all improvements and fixtures. The property contains a manufactured home, with a plate indicating compliance with federal manufactured home standards. The lender's notes indicated that in 1997, the mobile home was gutted and rebuilt as a house. Debtor did not acquire a separate title to the manufactured home; it is unclear whether such a certificate ever issued. In 2009, Debtor filed a petition for chapter 13 relief. He sought to avoid the lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 544 because the Bank failed to perfect its lien on the manufactured home pursuant to Kentucky law. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Debtor. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, first holding that Debtor had derivative standing to seek to avoid the lien. Regardless of the issuance of a certificate of title, Debtor has an interest in the home that is part of the bankruptcy estate. Under Kentucky law, a mobile home is personal property; perfection of a lien requires notation on the certificate of title. The mobile home had not been converted to real property and the lender did not perfect a lien on personal property.

When Rita Fix's son and daughter-in-law, Jeff and Marie, secured a loan from the First State Bank of Roscoe by obtaining a warranty deed for the property, the Bank assured Fix she could retain possession of the house. After Jeff and Marie conveyed the house and property to the Bank, the Bank sold the property and sought to remove Fix from the house. Fix sued the Bank for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Meanwhile, Fix, Jeff, and Marie were indicted on multiple criminal counts. The State attorney who brought the charges and who represented the Bank civilly offered to dismiss the criminal charges against Fix if she would deed the house back to the Bank. Fix then amended her complaint to include a claim of abuse of process against the Bank. The trial court granted summary judgment against Fix on her IIED claim. A jury then returned a verdict finding the Bank liable for abuse of process but awarded no damages to Fix. The Supreme Court reversed on the abuse of process claim, holding that the trial court provided the jury with the incorrect legal standard for the recovery of emotional damages. Remanded for a new trial.

Plaintiff sued in state court challenging the validity of both the foreclosure of his home by Chase and the redemption of his home by a junior lienholder, National. The district court subsequently granted Chase's and National's respective motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff contended that Minnesota law required Chase to hold both the mortgage and the promissory note at the time of the foreclosure, and genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Chase held the note. Plaintiff also contended that National's redemption was invalid because the foreclosure itself was invalid. The court held that Chase was the party entitled to commence a foreclosure by advertisement under Minnesota law, even if the promissory note had been transferred to someone else. Assuming arguendo Minnesota law required Chase to possess the note, the district court correctly granted Chase's motion for summary judgment in any event because plaintiff did not raise any genuine issues of material fact showing Chase was not the holder of the note at the time of the foreclosure. The court declined to address plaintiff's argument regarding redemption because plaintiff never challenged it in the district court.

Mortgage deeds executed by the debtors three years earlier were still pending recordation when they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Debtors sought to avoid the mortgages and to prevent any post-petition actions that would perfect them 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(5), 544(a), 547(b). The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the lender. The district court and First Circuit affirmed. Debtors failed to establish the necessary elements of a preferential transfer.

After the district court reduced Defendant Lindsey Springer's tax assessment to judgment and ordered foreclosure on certain real property, persons who held a mortgage on the property and who had participated in the litigation moved for an award of attorney's fees and expenses against Mr. Springer. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and awarding to the Cross-Claimants $10,576.56 of the $35,416 requested in fees and expenses. Defendant objected but the district court affirmed. The Tenth Circuit declined to address three of the five issues Defendant raised on appeal as they were precluded by res judicata. However, the Court found one remaining issue persuasive: Defendant contended that the Cross-Claimants waited too long under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to seek their fee award. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Cross-Claimants indeed filed their request too late, and the district court abused its discretion in granting even a partial fee award. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and the case was remanded for the district court to deny Cross-Claimants' award for attorney's fees and costs.

This appeal arose out of an action commenced by the New York State Attorney General against defendants, seeking injunctive and monetary relief as well as civil penalties for violations of New York's Executive Law and Consumer Protection Act, Executive Law 63(12) and General Business Law 349, as well as the common law. The primary issue on appeal was whether federal law preempted these claims alleging fraud and violations of real estate appraisal independence rules. The court held that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) governed the regulation of appraisal management companies and explicitly envisioned a cooperative effort between federal and state authorities to ensure that real estate appraisal reports comport with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The court perceived no basis to conclude that the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) itself or federal regulations promulgated under HOLA preempted the Attorney General from asserting both common law and statutory state law claims against defendants pursuant to its authority under Executive Law 63(12)and General Business Law 349. Thus, defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of federal preemption was properly denied. The court also agreed with the Appellate Division that the Attorney General had adequately pleaded a cause of action under General Business Law 349 and that the statute provided him with standing. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.