Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Foreclosure Laws

On April 12th, Missouri’s highest court granted lenders across the state a victory by ruling that banks only need to give defaulted borrowers, in foreclosure, credit for the amount of the foreclosure bid, as opposed to the fair market value of the property. The ruling is consistent with existing Missouri precedent, which, for decades, has maintained that the sale price of a foreclosed property is determinative with respect to the deficiency owed by the borrower to the bank, which is the remaining balance on the loan for which the lender can sue.

In the case, First Bank v. Fischer & Frichtel, the borrower, Fischer & Frichtel, a Missouri real estate developer, defaulted on loans to First Bank, which then foreclosed on properties securing the loan. First Bank purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. The lender proceeded to sue the borrower for the deficiency balance remaining on the loan. The borrower defended the case by alleging that the proper method of determining the deficiency was not the sale price at the foreclosure sale, but rather, the fair market value of the property. In so doing, the borrower essentially sought a modification of existing Missouri law with respect to calculations for suing on deficiency against a defaulted borrower. Fischer & Frichtel maintained that Missouri should align itself with other states which require a lender to determine the fair market value of the foreclosed property and apply that amount, which is generally higher than the foreclosure price, to the loan balance before suing a borrower.

The borrower argued that the current law often grants lenders a windfall after a foreclosure. Foreclosure sales require cash buyers on the day of the sale, except that the foreclosing lender can simply bid as a credit against the amount of the indebtedness owed by the borrower. This allows lenders to often easily outbid potential purchasers who may not have cash readily available. If the lenders obtain the properties at a depressed sale price at the foreclosure, they can then resell the property to a third party, in an arms-length transaction, and are entitled to keep any profits from the resale of the foreclosed property, without applying those profits to the borrower’s loan balance.

Continue reading »

Is Your Condominium Building Compliant With The Americans With Disabilities Act?

An aging baby-boomer generation and the increasing choice by empty-nesters to lower maintenance responsibilities and move into multi-unit residential buildings pose an interesting question for property managers and condominium board members. As a building’s age demographic increases, does a condominium association have an obligation to make the units or common areas accessible to persons with disabilities? Condominiums and other multi-unit residential developments present unique issues, because the building includes both private dwellings and public places. Some developments even include public commercial spaces as well. Given this dichotomy, building management will have to consider if, and what parts, of the building need to be accessible.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, public accommodations and services operated by private entities and common carriers. However, according to a supplement issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, strictly residential facilities are not covered under Title III of the ADA. What may pose a dilemma for a condominium, though, is that certain common areas, which are located in residential facilities, are considered places of public accommodation in some circumstances. The ADA identifies 12 categories of places of public accommodation:

1. Inns, hotels or places of lodging;
2. Restaurants, bars or establishments serving food and drink;
3. Movie theaters, concert halls or stadiums;
4. Auditoriums, lecture halls or convention centers;
5. Bakers, grocery stores or other sales or rental establishments;
6. Laundromats, dry cleaners, banks, barber shops or other service establishments;
7. Terminals, depots or public transportation stations;
8. Museums, libraries or galleries;
9. Parks, zoos or amusement parks;
10. Nurseries and schools;
11. Day care centers, senior centers or other social service establishments; and
12. Gymnasiums, health spas or places of exercise or recreation.

Depending on the nature of the condominium building, some of these categories of places of public accommodation may be applicable. Property managers and the building’s board must consider the possibility that federal law imposes obligations to provide reasonable accommodations with persons with disabilities, whether residents or members of the general public. This is especially important if a building is considering renovations to common areas or commercial portions of a building.

Continue reading »

Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Organizations from Employment Discrimination Claims

On Wednesday, January 11, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted victory to religious organizations across the nation by confirming that their First Amendment freedoms insulate churches and schools from certain employment discrimination claims. Some will consider this a landmark decision, and it may be the Court’s most significant church-state ruling in decades. The decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC confirmed churches’ and schools’ autonomy to make decisions about whom to hire and fire, when those employees have job duties related to the ministry of the organization.

The Court ruled against an elementary school teacher in her employment discrimination claim against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, of Redford, Michigan, holding that the First Amendment protects the school from the reach of anti-discrimination laws, when the claims involve certain employees. The ruling was in line with many lower federal court rulings, but the issue had not previously been presented to the United States Supreme Court.

In the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court confirmed the “ministerial exception” to certain anti-discrimination laws, concluding that the courts could not force the school to reinstate the teacher, Cheryl Perich. Perich claimed she was fired because she pursued a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging she suffered from narcolepsy.

While the Supreme Court confirmed the ministerial exception for religious organizations, such as churches and schools, it did not provide a strict test for determining exactly who was considered a “minister” for purposes of the exception. However, the Court’s ruling is clear that the exception applies to a class of employees broader than merely clergy. Perich was an educator, and was responsible for teaching secular courses, in addition to religion class, and she attended chapel with students. However, she had formal religious training and had recently been designated as a “called” teacher of the school, as opposed to a lay or contract employee. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is clear that her duties with respect to religious instruction at the school were sufficient for her to fall under the umbrella of the ministerial exception. The Court was further not persuaded that the small amount of time spent by the teacher teaching religion class during her work day was a significant factor, stating “the issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved with a stopwatch.”

Continue reading »

Pension Underfunding Contributes To Illinois Credit Downgrade

A recent article by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Moody’s Credit Agency has downgraded the State of Illinois’ credit rating to A2. The Post-Dispatch reports that this is the lowest mark Moody has given to any state, and, in part, the state’s severe pension underfunding has contributed to this credit problem.

The impetus of the story is new legislation passed by the Illinois legislature which outlaws “double dipping” by union officials. According to the article, union officials allegedly misused the pension system to secure large public pensions based upon short teaching stints and even substitute teaching for as little as a single day. Certainly this kind of abuse, if true, is, or should have been, discouraged by all the players involved, including both the state and the public pension plan trustees.

As highlighted by the rest of the article, Illinois continues to face a significant fiscal and budgetary problem, due to many factors, including public pension liabilities. The author notes that the crisis currently amounts to an $83 billion funding shortfall, resulting in the worst unfunded pension liability in the nation, with only 43% of the long-term pension obligations currently funded. Part of the fault certainly lies with the State of Illinois for its failure to fund in earlier, more prosperous times. If uncorrected, this funding shortfall will continue to cause headaches for Illinois lawmakers and public pension plans alike. Ultimately, if not corrected, the continuing trend could possibly cause personal financial losses to deserving retirees across the state.

While unions and public pension plan officials urge the state to fully fund the pension liabilities, lawmakers continue to evaluate plans for both the temporary and permanent fix to the state’s pension woes. Employees and retirees will be keeping a close eye on these legislative developments, and some options may threaten continued benefits for future and/or existing employees.

As the author of the article correctly points out, any attempt by the Illinois legislature to modify the retirement benefits of existing employees entitled to those pensions will almost certainly raise serious legal and constitutional questions that the Illinois, or perhaps even Federal courts, will ultimately decide.

Posted by Attorney Jeffrey R. Schmitt. Schmitt practices in commercial litigation including banking, real estate, construction, and other matters for individuals and businesses.

Bank Transfer Day and its Prospects for “Main Street” Banking

November 5, 2011 marked “Bank Transfer Day” around the United States, as initiated by 27-year old Los Angeles art dealer Kristen Christian, via this facebook page in early October. The movement, purposefully or not, coincided with the Occupy Wall Street movement and spread throughout the United States, denouncing big banks and the Wall Street financial industry. Perhaps the greatest alleged perpetrator, and possibly the greatest victim, of the Occupy and Bank Transfer Day movements was Bank of America, who announced earlier this year it intended to implement $5.00 monthly service fees for certain deposit accounts. Bank of America’s plan imploded when other big banks failed to follow suit with their own fees, and Bank of America became the sole target of criticism for its planned fee policy.

The result, in part, was the concept of Bank Transfer Day, where consumers were urged to withdraw their deposits from big banks and move their money to smaller and locally run credit unions. The result, according to the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), was that more than 40,000 people signed up for accounts at credit unions on November 5th, corresponding to about $80 million in deposits.  CUNA represents most of the chartered credit unions in the United States, and reports that its members saw increases in new account activity during the month of October and early November, prior to Bank Transfer Day.

While Bank Transfer Day created headlines and long lines at credit unions on a Saturday morning, did it really have the desired impact on Bank of America and other big banks?  The answer is probably not, given the size of the market share that Bank of America and other top banks in the United States hold, a loss of even tens of thousands of customers in a given week probably does not represent much of a blip on the banks’ radars. In fact, most large banks are flush with deposits right now, given the unstable market and the desire for many people and investors to remain liquid. Additionally, banks are benefitting from the low interest rates on deposit accounts, which means that many consumers are not even shopping rates to find the best return on their deposits, as has historically been the case.

Continue reading »

Making the Most of a Failed Bank: FDIC Loss-Sharing and Purchasing Loan Portfolios

One potentially lucrative by-product of the recent economic downturn and corresponding bank failures is the opportunity to acquire banks or loan portfolios at a substantial discount and on favorable terms. An FDIC receivership of a failed bank presents other healthy lenders with an opportunity to obtain receivables at a discount, and possibly corresponding deposits as well. Bank failures also offer options to investors with capital who may be considering non-traditional investment options given the current economic climate and real property market.

These opportunities usually present themselves in one of two ways. First, the FDIC may sell all of the assets of a failed bank, including receivables and deposits, to a third party, which generally is another lender. Second, the FDIC can pool individual loans together and essentially auction a pooled loan portfolio to a third party without corresponding deposits. Both scenarios require scrutiny of certain issues for the acquiring lender or investor in order to maximize the investment revenue from the purchase and ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement with the FDIC.

Loss-Sharing with the FDIC

A purchaser of a failed bank will generally enter into a Loss-Share Agreement with the FDIC. Loss-Share Agreements have developed in the past two decades, and give a purchaser the benefit of the FDIC’s agreement to absorb a percentage of a loss realized on the acquired receivables. Under a Loss-Share Agreement, the purchasing lender incurs the remaining portion of a loss on a loan, generally around 20%, while the FDIC incurs the greater share.

Loss-Share Agreements are intended to facilitate the FDIC’s sale of a greater number of assets to a purchasing lender while also burdening the acquiring lender with the obligation to manage and collect non-performing loans sold from a failed bank. In effect, loss-sharing results in the alignment of interests between an acquiring lender and the FDIC, which both now face risk associated with the workout of the bad debt acquired.

It is essential to understand the potential effects of a Loss-Share Agreement when bidding on a failed bank. The obvious benefit to the acquiring lender is the reduced risk associated with the purchase of a bank or loan portfolio. However, the benefit to the FDIC is that the loss-share, and the reduced risk to the purchaser, will likely create greater interest in acquiring a failed bank, and therefore increased bids for the purchase.

Dealing with Collateral

Evaluation of collateral packages for loans subject to sale by the FDIC is essential in evaluating the transaction and should be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not only important to evaluate the collateral, but to take steps to further protect the collateral, even if a particular loan is not in default.

Continue reading »

Condominium Assessments and the Recession

Why Bankruptcy and Foreclosure Aren’t Always the End of the Line in Missouri

The past decade saw a surge in condominium, loft, town home, and other multi-unit developments, in both urban and suburban areas. Urban revitalization resulted in renovated commercial and industrial buildings for loft developments, and baby boomers and empty-nesters have been drawn to the convenience of maintenance-free living provided by multi-unit developments in cities and suburbs. The recent recession and ensuing economic climate has impacted the real estate market and construction industry particularly hard, and many unfinished developments suffered as a result. However, the down turn in the economy poses problems for existing, fully occupied, and even well-managed buildings too.

Traditionally, the payment of condo fees or assessments by a unit owner was a priority, just like the payment of a mortgage. As increasing numbers of unit owners face job loss, reduction in pay, or other financial hardship, this tradition is falling fast, and payment of condominium fees and assessments has become less of a priority.

Other than headaches for building management and board members, delinquent condo fees and assessments pose a variety of dilemmas for multi-unit developments. Legal and practical ramifications of increasing delinquencies include the inability to obtain loans for capital improvements, a loss of services for the buildings and grounds, and an obstacle to sales of existing units.

Condominium associations and boards have long relied on collection lawsuits to compel delinquent owners to pay, and, ultimately threaten the sale of the unit by foreclosure of the condominium’s assessment lien. Increasingly, this litigation option is becoming less viable. The recent and continuing onslaught of foreclosure sales and personal bankruptcies strip the building management of the power to collect through litigation. However, all is not lost when a unit is subject to foreclosure or an owner files bankruptcy, and it is important that associations and boards are aware of their rights in these situations.

Foreclosure

In Missouri, and in approximately half of the states, lenders have the right to foreclose on a delinquent borrower through a non-judicial “power of sale.” Power of sale gives the lender the right to provide notice of foreclosure proceedings and sell property on the courthouse steps. Foreclosure sales by lenders threaten to extinguish assessment liens against a condominium unit that are imposed by operation of the building’s governing documents and Missouri law. In most cases, the lender will buy the property back and will become the new owner of the unit. In these cases, the sale price at foreclosure will likely be less than the loan value, and there will be no surplus for other lien claimants, including condo associations.

It is important for the board to know whether the foreclosing lender made a purchase money loan, that is, a loan used by the owner to purchase the property from a previous owner, or rather a refinance loan. The Missouri Condominium Act gives different treatment to condominium assessment liens and their priority over purchase money loans as opposed to refinance loans. In some cases, building associations can assert priority over the lender for all or part of the unpaid assessment lien. This means that the lien may survive the foreclosure and can be enforced against the lender or other subsequent owner. In any event, the subsequent owner is responsible for payment for fees accruing post-foreclosure.

It is also imperative that building management and the board are mindful of the building indenture and bylaws, and ensure that the provisions concerning assessment lien priority are consistent with those protections provided by the Missouri Condominium Act.

Bankruptcy

A unit owner’s bankruptcy, while initially causing collection problems, does not always result in the removal of an assessment lien. Most personal bankruptcies in the United States today are Chapter 7 cases, meaning that the owner’s assets are liquidated in order to pay creditors. As soon as a Chapter 7 case is filed a condominium association must cease collection activities against the property owner for the past debt. However, the assessment lien against the unit may remain as an encumbrance against the property. This means that in the event of a subsequent sale or refinance after the bankruptcy, the delinquent assessments may be paid at closing, even though the association cannot pursue the owner for those delinquent assessments directly.

Depending on the equity in the unit after a mortgage, the assessment lien, and any other liens against the property, the Bankruptcy Court may allow an assessment lien or other liens to be reduced or eliminated all together, in order to provide value to creditors. Of course, many lenders will begin foreclosure proceedings after an owner has filed bankruptcy, with permission from the Court.

It is also important to remember that even when an owner files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, monthly fees and assessments payable after the date of the bankruptcy filing may be collected from the unit owner, and may result in an assessment lien which can be enforced through litigation.

Some individuals file Chapter 13 bankruptcies, which are reorganizations of their financial affairs. These owners will propose a plan to the Bankruptcy Court to repay their debt over a period of three to five years. In many Chapter 13 cases, the delinquent assessments will be paid to the building over time.

Bankruptcy cases can vary widely, and building managers must keep abreast with the status of the case, the effect on the unit, and whether or not a claim for assessments should be filed.

Conclusion

Bankruptcies and foreclosures can seem ominous to building managers and boards seeking to recover delinquent assessments from owners. However, these circumstances do not necessarily preclude the recovery of unpaid accounts. Multi-unit developments are not always doomed to the fate of helpless victims in these scenarios and the management should respond to bankruptcy and foreclosure notices with an investigation of the circumstances in order to evaluate the options that remain and how the building’s rights can be enforced both in the immediate and long term future.