Daily Development for Monday, October 27, 2008
by:
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of
Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City,
Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
MORTGAGES; FORECLOSURE; FAULTY
FORECLOSURES: High bidder at foreclosure sale is not entitled to
difference value damages when crier wrongly refuses to deliver deed based on
trustee's and attorney's belief that notice may have been
inadequate.
Knucklehead Land Company v Acutitle, 172 P3d 116 ( Montana
2007)
Citicorp held a deed of trust mortgage on residential property in,
and there was also tax lien held by the IRS. The loan went into default and the
lender retained a Colorado law firm [!!!] the administer a nonjudicial
foreclosure sale. The law firm substituted ATE in as trustee, and ATE employed
FCTC to cry the sale on its behalf.
On the morning of
the sale, the law firm suddenly sent a fax to the trustee, advising it to stop
the sale because it believed that the IRS had not been given proper notice. ATE
attempted to contact the crier, but the sale was already in progress and the
auction continued.
At that sale Knucklehead bid $85,000 and was the high
bidder (although the property had been appraised at $172,000). However, when the
crier did get word from the trustee, it refused to accept Knucklehead's check
and declared that the sale was cancelled. The sale was renoticed and the
property later sold for $122,000 to a third party, Knucklehead apparently being
outbid at that renoticed sale.
Knucklehead then brought this for damages
against the law firm, the trustee and the crier. The defendants cross complained
against each other but ultimately settled those matters, leaving only the claim
of Knucklehead against the trustee and crier for judicial resolution.
The
trial court held that proper notice had been given to the IRS, which meant that
the foreclosure sale was valid, and that the trustee therefore had been in
breach in refusing to deliver a deed to Knucklehead. But the court further ruled
that Knucklehead had shown no recoverable damages under its breach of contract
theory, and the trustee had not breached any duties imposed upon it by Montana's
Small Tract Financing Act.
Montana statute limits the damages for a
breach of a contract to sell land to refund of any expenses incurred in
preparing for the sale and refund of any amounts transferred. Difference
value - the difference between fair market value and the contract price - are
not permitted except in the case of bad faith defaults:
“The detriment
caused by the breach of an agreement to convey an estate in real property is
considered to be the price paid and the expenses properly incurred in examining
the title and preparing the necessary papers, with interest thereon. If the
breach was in bad faith and the agreed price was less than the value of the
estate, the detriment is also considered to include the difference between the
agreed price and the value of the estate at the time of the breach and the
expenses properly incurred in preparing to enter upon the
land.”
Knucklehead argued that the statute didn’t apply to the trustee
because a deed of trust trustee is not a traditional trustee and its functions
are limited to acting in good faith in carrying out the sale, and it owes no
fiduciary duties not outlined the Act.
The Montana Supreme Court
affirmed. With regard to trustee duties, it stated that a trust indenture
trustee is not the same as a traditional trustee and is not subject to
traditional trust obligations. In enacting the Small Tract Financing Act, the
legislature struck a compromise between prompt and final foreclosure sales on
the one hand and the prohibition of deficiency judgments on the other. Imposing
additional duties on trust indenture trustees other than those stated in the act
would upset that balance. This trustee had not failed to give the notices nor
take the other steps that the Act required. Its failure to employ a checklist
for the sale was not negligence (and the trial court had already determined that
there had been no failure of notice to the IRS).
Absent a fiduciary duty,
the court applied the statute limiting damages in property sales (absent
seller’s bad faith) to actual monies expended absent seller’s bad
faith. The court found that there was insufficient evidence of bad faith
to survive summary judgment for defendants. Knucklehead had paid no part
of the price nor incurred any expenses as to be entitled to any damage award.
(Knucklehead had paid a rival $2,500 to stop bidding against it at the trustee
sale but it had then induced that rival to destroy the check when the sale to it
was cancelled, so that its expenses remained at zero.)
Editor’s comment
1: The editor is not aware how many states have statutes like Montana’s
here. The common law, of course, permits difference value damages except
when the sale is not completed because of failure of the seller’s title, in
which event a majority would find that seller is liable only to refund monies
the seller had paid.
The editor checked the precedent case cited by the
Montana court related to the statute. There is no discussion of the policy
behind the statute. Although it is true that sometimes market value
evidence is uncertain, that is often true in breach of contract actions, and the
editor doesn’t see why there should be a special statute limiting damages in
land contracts. Of course, the Montana legislature didn’t ask the
editor.
Editor’s Comment 2: In case readers are wondering, there is not
one word here about specific performance.
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 to 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/