Daily Development for Wednesday, March 26, 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; EQUITABLE MORTGAGES; ABSOLUTE DEED INTENDED AS MORTGAGE; FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENTS:   Conditional deed given as part of settlement of foreclosure action is not a mortgage within meaning of Florida statute providing that conveyances “securing the payment of money” shall be mortgages, even though the conditions of the deed provided that if the borrower did not pay scheduled payments for one year following the date of the deed, the lender could record the deed, take title, and evict borrower on ten days notice. Rothschild Reserve Intern, Inc. v. Silver, 830 So. 2d 224 (Fla. App. 2002)

A number of states have statutes similar to the Florida statute analyzed here.  Basically, they appear to be a recapitulation of a well established common law doctrine that states that where a debtor/creditor relationship exists or is created, and a deed is transferred to the creditor conditioned upon the later default of the debtor, the court will view the deed as an equitable mortgage.

The court states here that the statute was intended only to protect debtors when there had been no mortgage given, and when the only evidence of the security relationship was an absolute deed.  In such cases, the court says, the statute’s provisions are necessary to protect the equity of redemption.   Here, where the parties were already in a debtor/creditor relationship and had a mortgage, so, the court argues, the debtor had received the benefits of the equity of redemption.  Somehow, in the court’s view, the fact that the borrower had the equity of redemption in the circumstances existing prior to the settlement of the foreclosure satisfies the statutory policies, and there is no need to recognize an equity of redemption subsequent to the settlement.

Although the court says at another point that cases in this area should be decided on a case by case basis, its conclusion that the statute is not intended to apply where there is a preexisting mortgage suggests a categorical approach.

The court does not purport to analyze or apply the common law, and limits its review of precedent to cases construing the Florida statute.

Comment: The editor is aware that there are some in the practice community that view the conditional deed in a post default workout as the equivalent of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.  They are content with the argument that the benefits that the borrower receives in connection with the workout justify setting aside the classic common law protection of the secured debtor from his own poor judgment in agreeing to waive the equity of redemption.

The problem that the editor has with this argument is that there is no rationale basis to differentiate between a secured debtor who negotiates credit terms for a future repayment of the debt and a failed borrower who is arguing for an extension of the credit terms.  In both cases, the debtor perceives that there is a benefit in making the arrangement and expects to be able to perform.  The fundamental purpose of the equity of redemption is the recognition that the debtor’s judgment in these cases is necessarily clouded, and that the debtor is unable to focus properly on the grim reality of what happens if the debtor doesn’t pay.  Consequently, the courts have guaranteed the debtor a “second look” and the protection of a foreclosure sale to be sure that the debtor has an adequate last opportunity to redeem and has some protection against unscrupulous lenders forfeiting property valued in excess of the debt.

If we accept the premise that underlies the equity of redemption in the first place, the editor believes that it ought to be recognized in the case of workouts.  The extension of time provided to the borrower in a workout situation is, in effect, a new debt, and the debtor’s permitting the lender to have a conditional deed to secure the debtor’s performance ought to be regarded as a mortgage.  There may be some special circumstances in which the editor would conclude that the common law objectives are otherwise satisfied, but there seems to be no inkling of such circumstances in this case.

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