Daily Development for Tuesday, April 4, 2007
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu

MORTGAGES; FORECLOSURE; OMITTED JUNIOR LIENHOLDERS: Mortgagee holding both first and second mortgages on same property, that effects a release of the junior mortgage as a party defendant in the foreclosure of the first, enjoys treatment as an “omitted junior lienholder” and continues to have a lien against the foreclosure sale purchaser.

Abdoney v. York, 903 S. 2d 981 (Fla. App. 2005) (pet. for review denied)

A, an attorney, obtained a note and secured by a second mortgage on P’s property, securing an indebtedness for legal fees.  A apparently had an understanding with P that A would not foreclose this mortgage.   A’s was one of three junior mortgages.

P later defaulted on the first mortgage, which instituted a judicial foreclosure proceeding, and, to prevent being sold out in the first mortgage foreclosure sale, A paid that mortgage while the foreclosure proceeding was ongoing.  The mortgagee dismissed A as a defendant and the parties filed a joint stipulation for substitution of plaintiffs.  The court substituted A as the foreclosing mortgagee, and A amended the complaint, but did not inclujde himself in his capacity as a junior lienor.

At the foreclosure sale, York, a third party,  bought the property, creating a surplus.

A then sent York a letter demanding satisfaction of his mortgage, which of course had not been foreclosed away.  After some failed negotiations, A filed a foreclosure action which sought foreclosure against P (again), foreclosure against York, statutory redemption by A as a redemptioner and “lien foreclosure” (whatever that adds).  York responded by alleging slander of title and praying for a finding that A, who had notice of the prior foreclosure sale, was foreclosed away as a junior lienholdeer.

The trial court granted summary judgment to York on the issue of whether A’s lien was still valid, holding that it had been extinguished by the issuance of the filing of the certificate of sale in the first foreclosure action.

On appeal: Held: Reversed. 

The court held that, although A’s mortgage might have been deemed cancelled if A had acted in bad faith, otherwise A’s mortgage will not be deemed foreclosed.   It was unaffected by the prior sale, as A was not a party to that lawsuit.  The court noted that York had constructive and actual knowledge of A’s mortgage when she bought at the foreclosure sale. 

The court concluded that the only remedies available in favor of York were to reforeclose the mortgage (which would be equitably reinstated for this purpose) or to pay off A. As to A, the court held that it had the rights to redeem or to foreclose itself.  As to the redemption right of the junior, the court doesn’t say so, but presumably  the right is to pay off the first mortgage (reinstated, as noted) and be subrogated to it.  This is the conclusion reached in the Nelson and Whitman hornbook, which the court cited for authority.  So A  could not get title by exercising statutory redemption from its junior lien position  because that lien had not yet been foreclosed.  So the Florida statute didn’t apply to it. 

Although York was not the foreclosing , the court concluded that she would be deemed the equitable owner of that mortgage reinstated for purposes of dealing with A.  Again, this is consistent with the general approach for “omitted junior lienor” situations.

What makes the case unusual is the fact that the junior lienholder,. A,* omitted himself from his own foreclosure sale.* He did so purposefully.  The court states that, notwithstanding this odd situation, it could find no authority that would justify departing from the general rule that the lien of a junior mortgagee is not affected by a judgment..  If further noted that York was fully aware of A’s junior mortgage at the time she bid at the sale. 

Comment 1: Although York may have been aware of A’s claim, she could not, of course, have anticipated just what a court would do with the situation.  The first  mortgagee originally had named A in the foreclosure, then, at the time that A paid off the first mortgagee that mortgagee dismissed A as a party defendant (likely at A’s behest.)  Who knew what outcome would emerge from that?

Comment 2:   Junior liens who are not made parties to foreclosure sales are, in fact foreclosed away in at least one instance - parties taking their interest (and in some states those recording a prior interest) after the filing of the lis pendens associated with the foreclosure.  Although such parties sometimes are served and joined, the general rule is that they would be bound by the foreclosure in any event. 

The purpose of serving and joining junior lienholders is in part jurisdictional and in part Constitutional - government cannot terminate their property interests without notice and an opportunity to be heard.  But both notice and opportunity were available to A here.  What precise benefit is served by permitting A to escape joinder?

Comment 3: Note that in most jurisdictions a foreclosing mortgagee can avoid foreclosing away a desirable junior lease by the simple expedient of not joining that lessee as a party defendant.  Is that the same issue as we face here?  Certainly the junior lessee in many of these cases would prefer to be foreclosed away, but cannot get itself into the foreclosure action as a defendant.  This device elevates the significance of being named as a party.  But should the mortgagee be able to perform such manipulation of its own interest?  Shouldn’t we first know why the forceclosing mortgagee might do this?  We really aren’t told. 

What if the purpose was to work a fraud on the foreclosure sale purchaser, who might have had constructive knowledge of the junior and could have studied the foreclosure file to make sure the junior was named, but had no actual knowledge of the problem?  Should that matter?  (Apparently wasn’t the case here.)

Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters.  The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list.  Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.

Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5  15 messages per work day.

Daily Developments are posted every work day.  To
subscribe, send the message

subscribe Dirt [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters.  Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.”  But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list.  If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message

subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law.  Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.

DIRT has a WebPage at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/

*************************************

Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.

To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610

If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html

To review our privacy statement, go to https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.

If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.