Articles Posted in Loan Workouts and Enforcement

Attorneys Tamara Pow and Jack Easterbrook recently participated in a panel discussion of San Jose and Silicon Valley commercial real estate owners, lenders, borrowers and other professionals about issues arising in recent commercial real estate transactions. Jack and Tamara, at the conference, presented a “Top 10 List” of things to be alert to in real estate loan documents. It was assumed that the basic business terms of the purchase and sale agreement and loan transaction had been negotiated and agreed upon. The question posed was, “So what pitfalls can occur after that, and what issues do you want to be alert to as the deal gets documented – particularly in connection with the debt financing?” The point being emphasized was that a transaction can move to a closing with a minimum of angst if the parties identify early on those issues that will be important deal points, but may not be covered in detail in the financing terms outlined in a term sheet or commitment letter.

This blog addresses three of the “Top 10” points raised in the presentation. Subsequent blogs will address remaining items discussed at the conference. No one point is necessarily more important than the others, as the relative importance of a particular item will vary transaction to transaction. However, the attorneys at Structure Law Group see these factors repeatedly arising in real estate loan transactions.

No. 1: Inconsistency Between Borrower’s State of Registration and Lender’s Requirement.

In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s Riverisland ruling concerning lender liability, lenders in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley may want to evaluate and consider modifying their current lending procedures. As a San Jose based attorney experienced in loan documentation, problem loans and loan workouts throughout California, I have followed the ebb and flow of lender liability law for many years. Although it is a bit early to assess the long term impact of the California Supreme Court’s Riverisland decision, it is not too early to consider precautionary steps, which generally have to be taken at the outset when the loan is being negotiated and documented, to minimize the chance of claims being asserted later.

The court in Riverisland said that a lender’s oral statements about loan terms, even if made before the documents were signed, can come into evidence in a lawsuit if the purpose is to show that the lender used fraud to induce the borrower to enter into the transaction. The facts of Riverisland are discussed below. Before Riverisland, if the borrower’s evidence of oral statements by the lender about the loan terms was inconsistent with the loan documents, the borrower’s evidence could not even come into the case. Now it can, if the purpose is to show fraudulent inducement by the lender. And the facts supporting the borrower’s claims can be taken from the borrower’s own testimony of his or her recollections. This shifts some bargaining strength toward the disgruntled borrower in problem loan negotiations, as it will be difficult after Riverisland to eliminate such fraud claims early in litigation, or perhaps even before a trial.

The immediate question for lenders is whether any changes in the loan-making and loan documentation process are needed to protect against the potential effect of the Riverisland ruling. Some ideas of possible changes are offered below.

Those of us involved in real estate loans, debt financing, and problem loans or loan workouts have sometimes wondered whether a deed of trust can be valid if no trustee is identified. I am often asked this question and, surprisingly, the issue was never been directly addressed by California courts until the end of 2012! In a decision handed down a few months ago, a California Court of Appeals ruled that the omission of a named trustee on a deed of trust at the time it is executed and recorded does not preclude enforcement of the deed of trust through a foreclosure sale of the secured property.

The facts of the case are straightforward. A real estate loan was made and secured by a deed of trust on the property being purchased. The lender designated Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, as the beneficiary and simply omitted naming a trustee. Later, the borrowers defaulted on the loan and MERS then recorded a substitution of trustee naming ReconTrust Company, N.A. (ReconTrust) as trustee, and assigned its beneficial interest under the deed of trust to a loan servicer who further assigned the beneficiary’s rights to Arch Bay Holdings, LLC – Series 2010B (Arch Bay). As newly appointed trustee, ReconTrust filed the required notice of default and notice of sale, and eventually conducted a trustee’s sale at which Arch Bay purchased the property. After the sale, the borrowers filed a lawsuit asserting, among other things, that the failure to designate a trustee in the original deed of trust was a fatal flaw and precluded any trustee’s sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust. See, Shuster v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al. 211 Cal.App.4th 505 (2012).

The court first noted that this issue had never been addressed in prior California rulings. After wading through some technical arguments, the court ruled in favor of the lender or creditor and against the borrower, stating that the essential validity of the deed of trust is not affected because a trustee is omitted in the original deed of trust, as long as a trustee is named prior to a foreclosure. The court reasoned that the very limited powers granted to a trustee under a deed of trust – to convey the property at an out of court sale – are insufficient incidents of ownership or control to make the actual naming of a trustee critical to the validity of the document.