A few months ago, I argued the first appellate case construing Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118, which is the new Tennessee post-foreclosure deficiency judgment statute. As you may recall from my blog post about the new law, the statute provides a possible defense to a deficiency action, where the debtor can show “by a preponderance of the evidence that the property sold for an amount materially less than the fair market value…”
In layman’s terms, a foreclosed borrower may be able to avoid a judgment for the remaining debt if he can show that the foreclosure buyer drastically under-bid at the foreclosure.
All across the state, this statute has resulted in two fights:
- What was the fair market value at the time of the foreclosure? and
- Was the foreclosure sale price “materially less” than the fair market value?
A big problem under the statute has been that “materially less” isn’t defined in the statute or anywhere else in Tennessee law.
In the resulting GreenBank v. Sterling Ventures opinion, the Court of Appeals issued a bank-friendly interpretation, offering guidance as to what “materially less” means by saying that a sale price of 86% is not “materially less.”
I’ve heard from a number of bank lawyers since that opinion, complaining that 86% isn’t low enough. I’ve told them, just wait, the Sterling Ventures opinion didn’t set the “floor;” there is room in the statute for lower values, which will be established in future cases (in the Sterling Ventures case, the bid at issue was 88-91%, so it didn’t require the Court to define the lowest possible percentage).
This past week, my firm received another favorable opinion from the Williamson County Chancery Court. In this Opinion (click to review), the Court recognized this issue, and rightfully upheld lower percentage bid amounts. The Court, following the lead of the Court of Appeals, cites the Holt v. Citizens Central Bank case, which recognized that a 50% recovery at foreclosure is a customary result.
While this doesn’t suggest that 50% is the magic number/floor percentage, this analysis shows a judicial tendency in interpreting the statute at a lower range than most debtors have argued.
With any new law, it takes a few decisions to “battle test” how it works. So far, the parameters of Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118 are being defined in a way that favors creditors.