Daily Development for Wednesday, September 15, 2009
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
Here is another Ira Meislik Contribution:
MORTGAGES; SUBROGATION: Even if a refinancing lender's lack of knowledge of existing contractually subordinated encumbrances is due to its own neglect, when its borrower accepts a mortgage whose proceeds are used to pay the superior loan, the refinanced loan remains superior to the subordinate encumbrances.
UPS Capital Business Credit v. Abbey, 2009 WL 2046157 (N.J. Super. Ch. Div. 2009); June 26, 2009.
A homeowner borrowed $800,000 from a bank. The loan was secured by a mortgage. The borrower then took $187,450 from a second bank, and the first bank agreed to subordinate its mortgage to the later recorded mortgage. The borrower then borrowed $185,000 from a third bank, the successor-in-interest to the second bank. Those funds were used to pay the second loan. The title insurance commitment obtained at the time of the refinancing did not reference the $800,000 mortgage. Neither did the borrower's affidavit of title.
When the borrower defaulted, the third bank filed a foreclosure complaint but, through mistake and inadvertence, it did not list the first bank in the foreclosure complaint. The first bank then claimed that its lien had priority. The first bank argued that when it executed a subordination to the $187,450 loan, it only agreed to be subordinate to that mortgage and any renewals or extensions. It argued that the $185,000 mortgage loan from the third bank, as successor to the second bank, was neither a renewal nor an extension, but was a new loan. The first bank claimed that once the $187,450 mortgage had been satisfied, its $800,000 mortgage regained first lien priority.
The Court disagreed, finding that the $185,000 loan, which was from the holder of the superior loan, was in effect a modification and renewal of the $187,450 mortgage because it served to extend its term for a lower interest rate. Therefore, the Court found that first bank's subordination agreement applied to the $185,000 mortgage "modification" and its $800,000 mortgage was inferior.
It further found that, pursuant to the doctrine of equitable subrogation, the successor-in-interest bank had priority notwithstanding the fact that it was negligent in failing to discover the existence of the $800,000 mortgage. The Court pointed out that equitable subrogation is favored and is applicable as long as the third bank did not know of the first bank's mortgage even if it was the result of negligence. Therefore, the Court found that the third bank's mortgage had priority over the $800,000 mortgage.
The Court looked for the appropriate remedy to mitigate the first bank's exclusion from the foreclosure proceedings. In actions for strict foreclosure, the senior lien holder can force the junior lien holder to either redeem the senior mortgage debt or forfeit the lien. Strict foreclosure cannot be used to extinguish a junior lien if the lienholder was intentionally excluded from the foreclosure action. However, in this case, the failure to list the first bank in the foreclosure action was by mistake. Nonetheless, the Court found that the application of strict foreclosure in this case to compel the first bank to either redeem the third bank's mortgage or lose its lien was inappropriate based on the fact that the first bank never had the opportunity to bid at the sale. Therefore, the Court vacated the sheriff's sale and required the third bank to refile its reforeclosure complaint to extinguish the first bank's lien.
Editor's Comment 1: Although essentially mooted by the court's ruling on equitable subrogation here, the question of whether a replacement loan from a new lender is an "extension or renewal" of the original loan is a nice one. The editor suspects that most in the industry believe an "extension or renewal" is an agreement between the mortgagor and the holder of the mortgage. But does it really make any difference? The subordinating lender typically would not have the power to prevent the senior lien from being sold to another lender, so why should it care if another lender comes in and pays of the old loan? The subordinating lender would argue "injury or no - that's not the deal." Would it be right?
Comment 2: As indicated above, the issue in comment 1 becomes moot when the court concludes that anyone who refinances a senior lien and takes and records a new loan is subrogated to it as against junior lienholders. The Restatement of Mortgages rule is that a such a party is entitled to such benefit even if it has knowledge of the junior lien and, perforce, if it doesn't have knowledge, but this is due to culpable negligence.
Note that New Jersey rule doesn't move to the Restatement approach, at least not yet. Subrogation is available only where the refinancing lender is unaware of the "sandwiched" loan, albeit through negligence. Note that missing an $800,000 lien here when you are lending only $180,000 is a pretty big mistake. New lender got very lucky.
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 or
individual contributors 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
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.
To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
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 cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
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, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.
All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report. This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, ACMA members and members of the NAR. Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org ABA members also can access prior and current editions of this report on the ABA RPTE section website.
DIRT has a WebPage at: