Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118(d) Support a Two Year Statute Limitation on Any Creditors with a Lien? It Could Depend on Your Judge.

I received an interesting question/comment on this 2013 post, (in)artfully titled “Don’t forget that Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118(d) also has a two year statute of limitations on collection of foreclosure deficiency.” The question is this:

If first and second mortgage on property and first mortgage holder forecloses and not enough from sale to pay anything on second mortgage, is amount owed to second mortgage holder considered a deficiency balance so that second mortgage holder must bring action within 2 years under TCA 35-5-118(d)?

The statutory text doesn’t expressly address this issue. In fact, subpart (a) only references the generic term “creditor” (which could apply to any and all lien creditors). Then, when referencing a foreclosure sale, it doesn’t reference a specific creditor’s sale, but, instead, says “after a trustee’s or foreclosure sale of real property secured by a deed of trust or mortgage…” (which, again, could describe a sale by any and all lien creditors).

When I look at that text, I see so many places where a specific, limiting reference to that specific creditor could have been made, but no such limitation is included in the text. I might have said: After that creditor’s foreclosure sale of real property secured by that creditor’s deed of trust…

Now, if you take the entire statute as a whole, there’s a reasonable inference that the two year limitation of actions only applies to the “creditor” who actually engages in the foreclosure process. Subpart (b) references aspects of the sale process that “the creditor” will be impacted by (suggesting that the statute applies to one creditor, i.e. the creditor who foreclosed, and not all creditors).

Having dealt a lot recently with new statutes or with amended statutes with hastily amended text, I’ve seen how the Legislature can sometimes introduce a fix to correct one problem and, inadvertently, cause 3 new ones.

This seems to be that. Here, the original legislative intent appears to be to require that foreclosing creditor to take quick action, not impose a statute of limitations on creditors who had no active role in the foreclosure.

But, some judges take a liberal, progressive stance on legislative interpretation. Depending on what county you find your client in, this very well be an argument to make. If you’re in front of a debtor-friendly judge who views a judge’s role to be one that works backwards from the judge’s preferred outcome…well, this statute could support that judge’s inclination.

New Tennessee Opinion on Foreclosure Deficiency Follows Creditor-Friendly Precedent

One of my greatest victories was the favorable opinion I obtained for a client in GreenBank v. Sterling Ventures, et. al. , decided on December 7, 2012.

I blogged about it here, but to recap: That case was the first consideration of a foreclosure deficiency attack under Tenn. Code Ann. §35-5- 118(c). Under that statute, a borrower can argue that a foreclosed property sold for “materially less” than fair market value and, under §35-5- 118(c), a court can deny a deficiency judgment to the foreclosing creditor.

In an opinion issued this past Friday, the Court of Appeals revisited the statute in Capital Bank v. Oscar Brock, No. E2013-01140-COA-R3-CV – Filed June 30, 2014 (see full text here).  The case followed the established precedent of Sterling Ventures and its progeny.

This new case is notable in two respects:

  1. Courts can and will resolve §35-5- 118(c) issues at the Summary Judgment level,  where it is only a matter of applying the valuations against the foreclosure bid price. In fact, this new opinion weighs some of the evidence, in finding that the defendants valuations were were “formed
    months or even years before or after the time the Property was sold at foreclosure.” This was a major victory in the original Sterling Ventures case, since borrowers want to make these issues a “fact” question, forcing a trial and delay of judgent.
  2. Courts continue to look at percentages when determining what “materially less” means. Sterling  Ventures and the later opinions all say the courts want to avoid setting a “bright-line percentage, above or below which the statutory presumption is rebutted.” That has basis in the legistlative history of the statute, where the lawmakers used “material” based on its usage in child custody cases. Nevertheless, the courts continue to apply a percentage test; in this case, spread was 15.8% and the sale was upheld.

This Court shot down a number of other arguments, including: those based on the amounts of several post-foreclosure appraisals; based on the Bank’s ultimate sale-listing price; and an argument that the Bank committed “fraud” by bidding a lower amount when it planned  to market the property at a higher amount.

The ultimate take-away on this remains the same as in the past.

  • Get an appraisal at or near the time of the proposed sale.
  • Bid an amount that is reasonably tied to the amount of your appraisal (or other reliable/admissible valuation).
  • Summary Judgment is a proper way to proceed, provided the foreclosing creditor was cautious and acted with this statute in mind.