Daily Development for Monday, November 1, 2004
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; ASSIGNMENTS OF RENTS: What's up with the Uniform Assignments of Rents
Act?
Your editor is on the road again, returning from a two day meeting to work on
the draft of the Uniform Assignments of Rents Act - a new drafting project
proposed to NCCUSL by the Joint Editorial Board on Uniform Real Property Acts, a
Uniform Laws support group co-sponsored by various groups interested in real
estate law reform: the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the
American College of Real Estate Lawyers, the Community Associations Institute
and the American College of Mortgage Attorneys. Those who find distasteful
knowing "how sausage is made" can stop here, 'cause we're gonna talk about where
the proposed law now stands and why.
The JEB proposed this drafting project not because there isn't already state law
on assignments of rents, but because there is a lot of pretty poor law - both
statutory and common law - and there was a perception that a cleaner, well
thought out approach that took into account current bankruptcy issues would be a
welcome tonic. Without a doubt, the statute would provide direct benefits
primarily to real estate secured lenders, who would have greater clarity and
certainty in perfecting and enforcing their interests. The benefit to borrowers
is that a happy lender is easier to deal with, at lower cost, than one
constantly worried about little nits and nats of uncertainty in the background
law.
The Committee's work is not done. It will have one more meeting with Reporter
Wilson Freyermuth, a professor at Missouri/Columbia (visiting at North Carolina)
before a final draft is submitted to NCCUSL in August. But most of the difficult
issues appear to be resolved (subject always to last minute surprises); and
here's a summary.
The first major question the drafters addressed is what constitutes "rents"
covered by the Act. This is a more difficult issue than one might think. Of
course, we all know that rents include monies payable in exchange for a
temporary (less than perpetual) right of possession of real estate. But what
about situations where the primary consideration is paid not for possession but
for what might be called "non-possessory occupancy," such as kiosks in shopping
centers, boat slips and anchorages, small telecommunications equipment mounted
on rooftops, and billboards? If these interests are not defined by state law as
"rents," the lender's security interest might not be recognized as surviving
through a bankruptcy filing under Bankruptcy Code Section 552b, which applies
expressly to rents, but not other future income of the bankrupt. Further, the
committee felt that most in the real estate industry view these types of
interests as in the nature of rents. Consequently, the draft de!
fines
rents as including not only monies paid for possession but also for the
"occupancy" of real estate.
Then there's the question of hotel revenues. Here, the bankruptcy code has been
amended specifically to address security interests in these revenues as
surviving bankruptcy, but still it is important that there be clarity as to what
kind of filing needs to occur to perfect security interests in these revenues -
real property filings or UCC filings? The committee concluded, again, that the
trade was of the view that assignments of real estate rents applied to these
interests, although there was general acknowledgment that careful lenders filed
their rent assignments both in the land records office and the UCC records. The
draft Uniform Act makes clear that these interests also are treated as "rents"
for occupancy.
On the other hand, other revenues received by real estate operators that are
paid primarily in exchange for the provision of services on the property rather
than for the use of the property itself, such as fees paid for various services
provided in a full service hotel (such as room service or visits to a spa), boat
rentals, and similar revenues are not treated as rents. The Committee rejected
the broader concept that "rents" should include monies paid for the "use" of
real estate in addition to "possession" and "occupancy." The comments to the
definition section will provide a "laundry list" of interests that are covered
and not covered. The idea was to track, to the greatest possible extent,
accepted industry notions of what are personal property and what are real estate
rents.
The statute then goes on to tie down the perfection issue, stating that
recording of a rents assignment in the real property records makes that interest
"perfected," which is the magic concept by which the Bankruptcy Code determines
whether such interests will be recognized in bankruptcy. The statute indicates
that perfection occurs regardless of whether "activation" of the interest will
ever occur and regardless of whether it occurs prior to the bankruptcy filing
and whether or not it is for security purposes.
As to the activation event, the statute provides a range of options for the
rents assignee. Activation may occur through notice to the assignor
(borrower/landlord), demanding that it pay over rents as collected, but the
assignee can also go directly to the source and file a demand on the tenant.
Once the tenant receives the notice, with all the detail that the statute
provides (including advice to seek a lawyer if there is confusion), the tenant
pays the landlord at its peril. Its rent obligation is not satisfied by wrongly
paying rents over to the landlord. The only exception has to do with tenants
occupying the premises as their primary residence. The drafters concluded that
it as inappropriate to put such parties to a choice as to who to pay with their
home occupancy at stake. Payment to either party satisfies the rent obligation
in this case, and Professor Freyermuth is drafting language dealing with the
assignee's notice to the landlord’s management agent.
The Act makes clear that activation by notice does not, in and of itself, make
an assignee a mortgagee in possession, but really doesn't absolve the mortgagee
of the danger of falling into this status by taking other steps to manage or
enhance rent collection through actions more consistent with possession, such as
carrying out work on the property, threatening tenants with eviction, etc.
As to a receiver, the statute makes clear that the existence of a stipulation
for a receiver in a rents assignment is an independent basis for equitable
discretion to appoint a receiver, even when the value of the property exceeds
the unpaid loan balance. This is consistent with the notion espoused by the Act
that the rents interest created by an assignment constitutes a separate form of
additional security, and not simply an aspect of the mortgage on the underlying
real estate. An unresolved issue is whether the Act can or should dictate that a
court *must* appoint a receiver where the existence of a binding assignment is
shown. Your editor is concerned that this raises questions of balance of powers
for one thing and that in any event it inappropriately meddles with equitable
discretion of the court, which often provides a desirable “play in the joints.”
We’ll talk more about this at the next meeting.
The Act does not apply to the situation where the mortgagee takes possession
directly for the purpose of collecting the rents, since in many jurisdictions
this right is available at common law or by statute without the existence of an
assignment of rents. The Act concerns itself only with actions taken to enforce
rents assignments.
Certainly the most fireworks in this drafting project were expended over the
issue of whether the assignee that collected rents as a "straight assignee" had
any obligation to maintain the property. Many on the committee were originally
of the view that for the assignee to collect rents that the tenants were paying
in exchange for expected services, without the assignee having any duty to
perform these services, seemed unfair. (Traditionally, all rents, including CAM
charges and other rents “earmarked” for special purposes are picked up in a
standard rents assignment.) The editor and others pointed out that the law today
gives the mortgagee discretion to apply such collected rents directly to the
debt, but that tenants who have economic power can "bargain out" of this
situation by bargaining for a rent withholding right or otherwise, and also that
the rule probably doesn’t apply to permit the assignee to avoid the implied
warranty of habitability. Further, the tenants stil!
l have
an action in damages with the landlord, who would be the party that agreed to
provide the services and the party primarily responsible for their not being
provided to the tenants.
Some found unsatisfactory the answer that the tenant could always bargain for
better treatment, noting that many commercial tenants are"mom and pop"
operations who lack the clout or sophistication to bargain for protection from
the mortgagee's rights. They also were unhappy with the answer that this
situation reflects existing law, believing that NCCUSL should not condone a
situation that they viewed as fundamentally unfair. Ultimately, however, they
became convinced that the small tenant were weak simply because of their
position in the marketplace, and that ways proposed to help them - by imposing
duties on assignees to spend rents to perform lease covenants or maintain the
real estate - would, if enacted, result in a destruction of the freedom of
contract principle (which in turn would undermine the entire commercial lending
process), make the deals more cumbersome to carry out, and in the end provide no
real benefits to the “moms and pops.” Perhaps more to the point, it!
was n
oted that the only logical supporters of law reform in this area are lenders,
and lenders are unlikely to push hard for the adoption of legislation that
diminishes their existing security interests. So language helpful to tenants in
these cases likely would never see the light of day in any event, and the
drafting effort would be a waste of time.
Finally, those with reservations concerning giving the mortgagee continued
freedom to apply the rents to the debt, rather than to the maintenance of the
property, were convinced by the argument that the percentage of cases where this
really occurs is very, very small. The vast majority of lenders move quickly to
get a receiver appointed to collect rents and manage the property. Receivers, as
neutral stakeholders, have an obligation to spend the rents to maintain the
value of the rents and real estate security, and this includes servicing the
lease obligations that generate these rents as well as other maintenance.
Mortgagees tend to do this because otherwise they are exposed to liability as
mortgagees in possession if they take any act to preserve the property or keep
the tenants there (or, for that matter, if they evict unsatisfactory tenants).
Consequently, most mortgagees collect under an assignment only for the brief
interim period prior to get the receiver appointed. F!
urther
, most lenders who do take under an assignment without using a receiver are
likely to expend monies to maintain the property and even service the leases
because it is in their best interest to do so.
After discussing all of this at considerable length over the bulk of three
meetings, the Committee approved language that preserves the landlord's rights
to receive the rents and apply them only to pay the debt, consistent with the
terms of the rents assignment. Landlords need not pay out of rents any costs of
maintenance or preservation of leases. But the statute does provide that if the
parties do not agree otherwise, tenants preserve legal rights that might arise
from the failure of the landlord to perform, rights that might including rent
offset (in isolated cases) or recoupment.
Further the statute states specifically that the Act does not preclude any right
a tenant might have to obtain an equitable receivership itself to collect and
apply the rents. Under what circumstances might an tenant be able to seek a
receivership? Consider the case where the rent includes a component that
consists of "CAM" charges or other, similar charges specifically earmarked for
the payment of taxes, insurance or maintenance costs. Even though the assignment
expressly permits the lender to seize these rents without applying them to their
intended purpose, a court of equity might view this situation as inequitable,
and respond by appointing a receiver with instructions that might protect
tenants in this situation to some degree. At present, the Act does not contain
any language that defines when a court should act in this area, and no one on
the Committee was aware of any precedent other than in the implied warranty of
housing area.
Comment: The editor has served on two other NCCUSL drafting committees, and
continually is amazed at how hard the commissioners and advisors on these
committees work to identify the various interests that might be affected by
their project and to resolve in advance any conflicts that might block the
process of putting out an act that will enjoy a welcome reception at various
state legislatures. Unlike, for instance, the ALI process resulting in a
Restatement, the ultimate value is to produce clear, easily accepted legal rules
that make business work better, rather than the pursuit of a particular
reporter's or committee's view of what rules would make the world more "just and
equitable." The NCCUSL groups do not view themselves as having a monopoly on the
concepts of "justice:" and "equity," and recognize that different interest
groups tend to define these concepts in ways that suit their best economic
interests. The NCCUSL groups with which the editor has worked instead, !
try to
find non-ideological compromise solutions that really make difficult situations
work better. (There was recently an ALI/NCCUSL flap about some UCC provisions
dealing with software sales, and the Editor was not a commissioner at the time
all this went down and makes no comment about where the right side was on that
one.)
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
*************************************
To unsubscribe from this discussion list, send an email to
dirt-dd-unsubscribe-request@mail.abanet.org or use the following link:
http://w3.abanet.org/abanet/common/email/listserv/listcommands.cfm?parm=unsubscribe&LISTGROUP=dirt-dd
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.