ANYWHERE. ANY WAY. ANY HOW. ANY TIME. BAR NONE. A foreclosure information sharing site committed to saving homes from foreclosure and facing any challenge that comes our way with Wisdom, Intelligence, Gratitude, and Grace. Nothing is too Good to be true. Nothing is too much to ask of the Power of God that can do anything. No weapon formed against you shall prosper! Onward!
chapter 13 debtor objected to the portion of a mortgagee’s claim
consisting of expenses related to foreclosure of its mortgage. She
argued that since the mortgagee failed to comply with notice
requirements under the mortgage, the foreclosure expenses were not
debtor defaulted in June, and the mortgagee sent a notice of default in
September. The notice stated: “If foreclosure is initiated, you have
the right to argue that you did keep your promises and agreements under
the Mortgage Note and Mortgage, and to present any other defenses that
you may have.”
debtor failed to cure, so the mortgagee accelerated the note and
initiated foreclosure proceedings. Before the foreclosure sale took
place, the debtor filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.
mortgagee filed a claim for ~$14,200. This included counsel fees,
advertising costs and title costs of ~$2,000 relating to the foreclosure
proceeding. The debtor objected to the foreclosure costs, arguing that
the mortgagee failed to provide proper notice of default prior to
acceleration, and thus was not entitled to recover the charges.
paragraph 22 of the mortgage required the mortgagee to give notice of
“the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a
default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale.” The debtor argued that the mortgagee was required to give her notice of the right to bring a court action as a condition precedent for exercising the power of sale to foreclose.
mortgage also provided in paragraph 14 that the mortgagee could charge
the borrower for services performed in connection with the borrower’s
default, and the note provided that the borrower could be required to
pay all costs and expenses in enforcing the note, including reasonable
mortgagee responded: (1) it was not required to use the exact language
in the mortgage and it did advise the debtor of her right to dispute the
default, (2) even if it did not comply with the notice provision, the
mortgage and note entitled it to collect the costs, (3) any
non-compliance was a technical failure that was a non-material breach,
and (4) in any event several years earlier the debtor received numerous
notices of default that did contain language regarding the right to
bring a court action, so she was on notice.
court noted that this was a question of state law. Under state law the
note and mortgage constituted one agreement and must be read together
since they were executed in the course of a single transaction to
accomplish the same purpose (i.e., to obtain a loan). The court next determined that in reading the note and mortgage as an integrated contract it was clear that compliance with the notice requirement was a condition precedent to the right to accelerate and pursue foreclosure. The
mortgagee was required to give notice of a right to bring court action.
Since it did not, it was not entitled to accelerate the note and
foreclose the mortgage.
if the court had determined that there was an ambiguity, it would have
construed the contract against the drafter (i.e., mortgagee). Further it
found that the mortgagee had an implied covenant of good faith and fair
the mortgagee had a duty to comply with the terms of the mortgage,
which included an obligation to inform the debtor of her right to bring
court action. The actual language used in the notice of default – that the debtor had a right to argue defenses – did not make it clearto whomto present the argument and defenses.
court then proceeded to reject each of the mortgagee’s arguments,
including the argument that notices given approximately four years
earlier were sufficient. The court felt those notices were completely
sum, (1) the notice was defective in that it did not mention the right
to court action, (2) proper notice was a condition precedent to the
right to accelerate and foreclose, and (3) consequently the mortgagee was not entitled to recover the costs of the foreclosure process.
this case amply illustrates, a lender should pay careful attention to
the requirements of its loan documents. For notices this includes both
the content of the notice and the method of delivery. Nine times out of
ten (or even 99 times out of 100) minor errors don’t matter. But then
there is the one time when they do.