|
Daily Development for Wednesday, June 25,
2003
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; ASSIGNMENT; Connecticut court
concludes
assignee of mortgage that lacks
possession or formal assignment of note
may not foreclose.
Fleet National Bank v. Nazareth, 818 A. 2d 69
(Conn. App. 2003)
In 1994, Nazareth executed a promissory note and
mortgage, securing
repayment of $184,000,
in favor of Shawmut Mortgage Company.
Later, Shawmut Mortgage merged with, and became known
as, Fleet
Mortgage Corporation.
Fleet Mortgage assigned its interest in the
mortgage, but not the note, to Fleet National Bank (which appears
to
have been a sister corporation to
Fleet Mortgage). Fleet National Bank
then assigned the mortgage to R.I. Waterman Properties, Inc. (which
was
a subsidiary of Fleet National Bank,
responsible for handling the Bank's
foreclosures).
The Nazareth loan became delinquent and Fleet National
Bank filed an
action for judicial
foreclosure. In due course, Waterman Properties was
substituted as plaintiff in the judicial foreclosure
action.
At trial, defendants Nazareth claimed that Waterman
Properties lacked
standing to bring the
action because it was not a holder of the underlying
note. The court stated that it was
"undisputed" that Fleet Mortgage was
still the holder (i.e., owner) of the note, while Waterman
Properties was
holder (i.e., owner by
assignment) of the mortgage. It appears Waterman
Properties argued that failure to assign the note
with the mortgage was
clearly an
oversight. The trial court ruled in favor of Waterman
Properties, and defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding there is no
legal authority for the
assignee of a
mortgage to foreclose absent proof of assignment of the
underlying note. The court distinguished prior
Connecticut cases
upholding enforcement
of a mortgage where the holder was shown to
have an interest in the underlying note but, as in one case, the
note was
lost.
Likewise, the Court said the Connecticut statute
permitting a note holder
to foreclose a
related mortgage, even though the mortgage has not been
assigned, did not help Waterman Properties in this
'opposite' situation.
Said the Court,
"(w)e conclude, therefore, that the legislature did not
intend to permit the holder of the mortgage, without
having been
assigned the note, the
ability to foreclose on the property." (See
Connecticut General Statutes section
49-17.)
Reporter's Comment: There's a familiar
rule that "the security follows
the
debt,"
or the mortgage interest goes with
the note, but, as illustrated in this case,
the converse may not always be true.
I'll confess this result doesn't make perfect sense to
me. Wouldn't it seem
that
assignment of the mortgage evidences an intention to assign at
least
some part of the underlying
debt? If not, why was the mortgage
assigned? Rhetorical question--or at least one, in
Connecticut anyway, to
be put to the
legislature rather than a court.
A tough result for mortgage assignees, and their
lawyers, who may seek
to enforce
mortgages that have been passed through now defunct
corporations, with neither records nor witnesses to
explain what was
intended.
Editor's Comment 1: The critical fact to the editor
here is the statement
in the opinion that
it was "undisputed" that the party bringing the
foreclosure action was not the owner of the obligation.
Editor's Comment 2: The prevailing rule is to assume
that the parties
intended to assign the
debt along with the mortgage, even if there is no
evidence of anything by the mortgage
assignment. Nelson and Whitman
discuss this concept and cite cases in their treatise: Real Estate
Finance
Law pp 373-374 (4th Ed. West
2001) They also recommend this approach
in the Restatement of Mortgages, Sec. 5.4b. This presumption
solves
most problems. But it
does not solve the problem where the holder of
the debt does not agree that it is no longer the owner of the debt
and
insists that it assigned the mortgage
separately. In that case, then at best
the owner of the debt ought to be an additional party plaintiff in
the
mortgage foreclosure action. At
worst, the transfer is a nullity and only
the debt holder can foreclose. For this more conservative
position that
the transfer is a nullity,
the minority rule, Nelson and Whitman cite case
law in Florida, Arizona, New York, California, Indiana, and
South
Dakota. Even though a
minority rule, when you've got New York and
California following it, you've got a rule with some
"legs."
Editor's Comment 3: The lender brought this on itself
by establishing a
foreclosure method that
seemed quite likely to fail, especially in a title
theory state like Connecticut. The editor
wonders why the lender would
take this
case up on appeal rather than clean up the ownership problem -
either transferring the note to the foreclosing party
or transferring the
mortgage to the note
holder and then reforeclosing. Maybe there were
statute of limitations issues or bankruptcy issues,
but that does seem to
have been a
smoother path.
The reporter for this item was Bert Rush of First
American Title in
California, writing in
the First American newsletter, Landsakes.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this
posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications
related to it 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 provided
and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor 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 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:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property,
Probate
and Trust Law or of the National
Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that
includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic
reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by
contacting Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or
asmith4@staff.abanet.org |