bloglines.com
When a commercial mortgage loan provider sets out to implement a mortgage loan following a debtor default, a key objective is to recognize the most expeditious manner in which the loan provider can obtain control and belongings of the underlying collateral. Under the right set of circumstances, a deed in lieu of foreclosure can be a quicker and more cost-effective option to the long and lengthy foreclosure process. This short article discusses steps and problems lending institutions need to think about when deciding to continue with a deed in lieu of foreclosure and how to avoid unexpected risks and obstacles during and following the deed-in-lieu procedure.
bloglines.com
Consideration

A crucial aspect of any contract is ensuring there is adequate factor to consider. In a basic transaction, consideration can easily be established through the purchase cost, however in a deed-in-lieu situation, verifying sufficient factor to consider is not as straightforward.

In a deed-in-lieu situation, the amount of the underlying financial obligation that is being forgiven by the loan provider usually is the basis for the factor to consider, and in order for such consideration to be deemed "adequate," the financial obligation needs to at least equal or go beyond the fair market price of the subject residential or commercial property. It is necessary that lenders get an independent third-party appraisal to validate the value of the residential or commercial property in relation to the quantity of financial obligation being forgiven. In addition, its advised the deed-in-lieu agreement consist of the debtor's reveal acknowledgement of the fair market price of the residential or commercial property in relation to the quantity of the financial obligation and a waiver of any potential claims connected to the adequacy of the factor to consider.

Clogging and Recharacterization Issues

Clogging is shorthand for a primary rooted in ancient English common law that a debtor who protects a loan with a mortgage on realty holds an unqualified right to redeem that residential or commercial property from the loan provider by paying back the financial obligation up till the point when the right of redemption is legally snuffed out through a proper foreclosure. Preserving the borrower's fair right of redemption is the reason that, prior to default, mortgage loans can not be structured to consider the voluntary transfer of the residential or commercial property to the lender.

Deed-in-lieu deals preclude a customer's equitable right of redemption, nevertheless, steps can be required to structure them to limit or avoid the danger of a blocking obstacle. First and primary, the contemplation of the transfer of the residential or commercial property in lieu of a foreclosure must take place post-default and can not be considered by the underlying loan files. Parties ought to also watch out for a deed-in-lieu arrangement where, following the transfer, there is a continuation of a debtor/creditor relationship, or which contemplate that the customer maintains rights to the residential or commercial property, either as a residential or commercial property supervisor, a renter or through repurchase choices, as any of these plans can develop a threat of the deal being recharacterized as an equitable mortgage.

Steps can be required to mitigate versus recharacterization dangers. Some examples: if a borrower's residential or commercial property management functions are limited to ministerial functions rather than substantive decision making, if a lease-back is brief term and the payments are clearly structured as market-rate usage and tenancy payments, or if any arrangement for reacquisition of the residential or commercial property by the debtor is established to be totally independent of the condition for the deed in lieu.

While not determinative, it is that deed-in-lieu contracts include the celebrations' clear and unequivocal acknowledgement that the transfer of the residential or commercial property is an absolute conveyance and not a transfer of for security purposes just.

Merger of Title

When a lending institution makes a loan protected by a mortgage on property, it holds an interest in the realty by virtue of being the mortgagee under a mortgage (or a recipient under a deed of trust). If the lender then gets the property from a defaulting mortgagor, it now also holds an interest in the residential or commercial property by virtue of being the fee owner and acquiring the mortgagor's equity of redemption.

The basic rule on this concern offers that, where a mortgagee acquires the fee or equity of redemption in the mortgaged residential or commercial property, and there is no intermediate estate, merger of the mortgage interest into the cost takes place in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent. Accordingly, when structuring and documenting a deed in lieu of foreclosure, it is very important the agreement plainly shows the celebrations' intent to retain the mortgage lien estate as distinct from the charge so the lending institution maintains the capability to foreclose the underlying mortgage if there are stepping in liens. If the estates combine, then the lender's mortgage lien is snuffed out and the loan provider loses the ability to deal with intervening liens by foreclosure, which might leave the lender in a possibly even worse position than if the loan provider pursued a foreclosure from the beginning.

In order to clearly reflect the parties' intent on this point, the deed-in-lieu contract (and the deed itself) must consist of reveal anti-merger language. Moreover, because there can be no mortgage without a financial obligation, it is customary in a deed-in-lieu scenario for the lending institution to deliver a covenant not to sue, instead of a straight-forward release of the financial obligation. The covenant not to sue furnishes consideration for the deed in lieu, secures the customer versus exposure from the financial obligation and also keeps the lien of the mortgage, therefore allowing the lender to preserve the capability to foreclose, needs to it become preferable to remove junior encumbrances after the deed in lieu is total.

Transfer Tax

Depending on the jurisdiction, handling transfer tax and the payment thereof in deed-in-lieu deals can be a considerable sticking point. While most states make the payment of transfer tax a seller obligation, as a practical matter, the lender ends up taking in the cost since the customer is in a default circumstance and usually lacks funds.

How transfer tax is determined on a deed-in-lieu transaction depends on the jurisdiction and can be a driving force in determining if a deed in lieu is a practical alternative. In California, for instance, a conveyance or transfer from the mortgagor to the mortgagee as a result of a foreclosure or a deed in lieu will be exempt as much as the amount of the debt. Some other states, consisting of Washington and Illinois, have uncomplicated exemptions for deed-in-lieu deals. In Connecticut, nevertheless, while there is an exemption for deed-in-lieu transactions it is limited only to a transfer of the debtor's individual home.

For a business transaction, the tax will be calculated based on the complete purchase price, which is specifically specified as including the quantity of liability which is presumed or to which the real estate is subject. Similarly, but even more possibly extreme, New York bases the quantity of the transfer tax on "factor to consider," which is specified as the overdue balance of the debt, plus the overall amount of any other making it through liens and any quantities paid by the beneficiary (although if the loan is totally option, the consideration is topped at the reasonable market price of the residential or commercial property plus other quantities paid). Remembering the lending institution will, in the majority of jurisdictions, need to pay this tax once again when ultimately offering the residential or commercial property, the specific jurisdiction's rules on transfer tax can be a determinative aspect in deciding whether a deed-in-lieu transaction is a practical option.

Bankruptcy Issues

A significant issue for lending institutions when determining if a deed in lieu is a feasible alternative is the issue that if the borrower becomes a debtor in a bankruptcy case after the deed in lieu is complete, the personal bankruptcy court can trigger the transfer to be unwound or reserved. Because a deed-in-lieu deal is a transfer made on, or account of, an antecedent debt, it falls directly within subsection (b)( 2) of Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code handling preferential transfers. Accordingly, if the transfer was made when the customer was insolvent (or the transfer rendered the customer insolvent) and within the 90-day period stated in the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor becomes a debtor in a personal bankruptcy case, then the deed in lieu is at danger of being set aside.

Similarly, under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, a transfer can be set aside if it is made within one year prior to a personal bankruptcy filing and the transfer was made for "less than a reasonably equivalent value" and if the transferor was insolvent at the time of the transfer, ended up being insolvent since of the transfer, was engaged in an organization that preserved an unreasonably low level of capital or planned to incur debts beyond its ability to pay. In order to alleviate against these threats, a loan provider ought to thoroughly review and evaluate the borrower's financial condition and liabilities and, preferably, need audited monetary statements to validate the solvency status of the debtor. Moreover, the deed-in-lieu contract should include representations regarding solvency and a covenant from the borrower not to file for insolvency during the choice duration.

This is yet another reason that it is necessary for a lender to procure an appraisal to verify the worth of the residential or commercial property in relation to the debt. An existing appraisal will assist the lender refute any claims that the transfer was made for less than reasonably equivalent value.

Title Insurance

As part of the preliminary acquisition of a genuine residential or commercial property, a lot of owners and their lending institutions will obtain policies of title insurance coverage to secure their particular interests. A lending institution considering taking title to a residential or commercial property by virtue of a deed in lieu may ask whether it can rely on its loan provider's policy when it ends up being the fee owner. Coverage under a lending institution's policy of title insurance can continue after the acquisition of title if title is taken by the exact same entity that is the called insured under the lending institution's policy.

Since many lending institutions prefer to have actually title vested in a different affiliate entity, in order to guarantee continued coverage under the lender's policy, the named lender needs to designate the mortgage to the designated affiliate victor prior to, or simultaneously with, the transfer of the fee. In the alternative, the lender can take title and after that convey the residential or commercial property by deed for no consideration to either its moms and dad business or a wholly owned subsidiary (although in some jurisdictions this could activate transfer tax liability).

Notwithstanding the continuation in protection, a loan provider's policy does not transform to an owner's policy. Once the loan provider becomes an owner, the nature and scope of the claims that would be made under a policy are such that the lender's policy would not supply the same or a sufficient level of security. Moreover, a lender's policy does not obtain any defense for matters which emerge after the date of the mortgage loan, leaving the lending institution exposed to any concerns or claims stemming from occasions which happen after the initial closing.

Due to the fact deed-in-lieu deals are more susceptible to challenge and dangers as described above, any title insurance provider issuing an owner's policy is most likely to undertake a more extensive review of the deal throughout the underwriting procedure than they would in a typical third-party purchase and sale deal. The title insurer will scrutinize the parties and the deed-in-lieu files in order to recognize and mitigate risks provided by problems such as merger, obstructing, recharacterization and insolvency, therefore possibly increasing the time and expenses associated with closing the deal, but eventually offering the lending institution with a greater level of security than the lender would have absent the title business's participation.

Ultimately, whether a deed-in-lieu transaction is a practical choice for a lender is driven by the specific realities and situations of not only the loan and the residential or commercial property, but the parties included too. Under the right set of circumstances, therefore long as the correct due diligence and documents is acquired, a deed in lieu can supply the lender with a more efficient and less costly means to recognize on its security when a loan goes into default.

Harris Beach Murtha's Commercial Realty Practice Group is experienced with deed in lieu of foreclosures. If you need assistance with such matters, please connect to lawyer Meghan A. Hayden at (203) 772-7775 and mhayden@harrisbeachmurtha.com, or the Harris Beach lawyer with whom you most regularly work.