Foreclosure – Creditors Rights 101

Can a Sheriff’s Execution Sale of Real Property be Continued? (Not Without Court Order or Express Statutory Authority)

A few months ago, I got an unexpected call from a local Sheriff’s Office, late on a Friday afternoon. (Hardly ever always a good thing.)

This Sheriff and I had done a real property “sheriff’s sale” a few years ago that was very successful, and he had one scheduled for Monday that he needed my help on.

“Can a Sheriff’s Execution Sale of Real Property be Continued?” he asked.

The attorneys for the creditor and the judgment debtor were trying to work out a deal, but they were running out of time, but the Sheriff didn’t think he could give them more time.

I wasn’t sure either, so I went with my default answer: “It depends. Let’s talk this out.”

In the end, my advice was: “Under existing Tennessee execution law, he couldn’t: He had to proceed, or the judgment creditor had to call it off. There was no in between.”

It reminded me of foreclosures, before the Tennessee passed Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(f) in 2011.

Back then, unless the text of a deed of trust expressly authorized a foreclosure postponement, trustees weren’t sure if they could continue a sale. Some trustees included language in their sale notices allowing continuances, making it seem like it was no big deal (but if you if you pressed them on the authority to postpone a sale, they’d usually admit that there was none).

Back then, if a deed of trust was silent on continuance, most prudent lenders tended to proceed with a sale, regardless of whether the parties were negotiating potential resolutions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(f) was enacted to avoid those harsh results and help parties who were trying, in good faith, to resolve disputes and save their homes. It gave them some relief to work out a deal.

So, back to our Sheriff’s Sale. The analogy to foreclosures is apt, because the sheriff’s sale statutes track the foreclosure statutes. If you at Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-5-101, et. seq.–it’s nearly the exact same text. In short, a Sheriff’s Sale is, basically, the same thing as a foreclosure sale, but done by the sheriff.

But, for this blog post, I’ll point out a big difference: There’s no § 26-5-101 “(f)” — the part about the continuances. It’s the same text, except for that section.

Uh oh.

And, of course, there’s never going to be any sort of contract to fall back on, because there’s hardly ever going to be any sort of contract between a judgment creditor and judgment debtor providing any sale terms (as a deed of trust would between a borrower and lender).

Separately, there’s nothing in any other Tennessee statutes–talking about execution, sheriff sales, Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69 or elsewhere–about continuances.

Finally, in talking to the Sheriff, I asked him–in a last ditch effort to see if I could help the parties on his sale get some more time to reach a resolution–whether their case’s Sale Order or Notice of Sheriff’s Sale said anything about ability to continue or postpone the sale? There was nothing at all they could point to.

In a perfect world, we’d have a statute that allows continuances in sheriff’s sales. In a less perfect world, the Court’s Sale Order would allow a continuance. In an even less perfect situation, we’d have a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale that would allow a continuance.

Their sale didn’t have any of that.

Lender Groups ask Tennessee Supreme Court to weigh in on conflicting authority on wrongful foreclosures

In July, I wrote about a July 2022 Court of Appeals opinion holding that even a defective foreclosure sale conveys valid title to real property. That’s because Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 35-5-106 and 35-5-107 expressly say that title is not impacted by a defective sale and, instead, the foreclosing trustee is liable for monetary damages.

Within a few minutes, a local banker commented on the post and asked: Yeah, but did you see this one from last month?

He was talking about Terry Case v. Wilmington Tr., N.A. as Tr. for Tr. MFRA 2014-2, No. E202100378COAR3CV, 2022 WL 2313548 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2022)– issued less than a month earlier–which held (sort of) exactly the opposite: “[A] trustee’s mere failure to comply with the terms of a deed of trust will render the foreclosure sale invalid.” Id. at *8.

How does the law reconcile these drastically different outcomes, based on the same wrongful foreclosure allegations?

Tennessee is a non-judicial foreclosure state, but don’t be lulled into a sense that foreclosures are simple (i.e. just “paperwork”). Instead, a foreclosing lender must simultaneously adhere to two separate processes, one of which is found in Tennessee statutes and the other in the underlying deed of trust.

Sometimes, they match; sometimes, they don’t.

If the lender doesn’t comply with any of the requirements of both tracks in full, though, this developing caselaw imposes drastically different remedies for non-compliance. Fail to satisfy the statutes? No big deal. Fail to satisfy the deed of trust? Here’s a nuclear bomb to your title.

Needless to say, this is confusing to creditors, borrowers, and buyers at foreclosure sales.

The plaintiff in the June 2022 case has filed an Application for Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court (a full copy is attached below), seeking clarification on the splintered issues of law surrounding wrongful foreclosure claims. The Application opens with a direct message: “Tennessee wrongful foreclosure law is in a state of disarray.”

On behalf of the Tennessee Bankers Association and the Tennessee Mortgage Bankers Association, my office filed an Amicus Brief in support of the request to have the Supreme Court step in (also below).

This is a big deal. If this caselaw stands, title to foreclosed real properties will remain clouded until the wrongful foreclosure claims expire (6 years from the sale date). And, sure, a title company can vet the sale process, but title companies don’t like any risk, no matter how small.

This will render post-foreclosure title completely uninsurable. This isn’t good for anybody. Borrowers, lenders, buyers–everybody loses here.

application-for-permission-to-appeal-4878-4945-6182-v.1 Download

filed-amicus-brief-in-wilmington-v-case-4884-8705-5926-v.1 Download

Per the Numbers: Tennessee foreclosures are historically low, but storm clouds are forming

My banker clients are a pessimistic bunch.

That’s partially because the bankers that I deal with are in “special assets” or are the bank’s general counsel.

Long story short, they aren’t the ones at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the expensive new restaurant; nope, my clients are the ones who get called in at the end, when the loan has gone bad and we’re figuring out what to do with used restaurant equipment. My clients always notice the storm clouds on the horizon.

With that in mind, for more than a year, they’ve been predicting a tidal wave of commercial and consumer loan defaults, followed by a spike in foreclosures.

And, generally, they’ve been wrong.

In Tennessee, one recent study showed that–to date–there have only been 3,316 foreclosure sale notices published (state-wide) in 2022. That sounds like a lot, but it’s less than a third of what we had in 2017 (10,810) and 2018 (11,711).

In 2022, the most sale notices have been published in Shelby County (496), followed by Hamilton County (304), Davidson County (271), and Knox County (223). Honorable mention to Williamson County (153) and Montgomery County (132).

The 3,316 figure for 2022 is an increase from 2021 (2,169). These drop aren’t entirely COVID driven, as Tennessee had just 5,982 sale notices published in the pre-pandemic glory days of 2019.

That low volume in 2019-2020 was the result of a number of factors, including COVID-related forbearances, sky-rocketing property values, and low interest rates. And, as you know, all of those factors are disappearing.

(Side-note: We can’t be sure about COVID, of course, but I’m pretty sure we won’t see mortgage rates in the 2’s and 3’s for a very long time.)

In the end, here’s where the bankers are probably right: There’s a backlog of foreclosures, and the crush is coming soon. The bankers are correct that the sky is falling; their timing was just off by a year.

Homebuyer Beware: Some of the property listings on Zillow are Foreclosures and Sheriff’s Sales

Last year, I had a foreclosure scheduled for a Williamson County property in an “in demand” neighborhood and, somehow, Zillow picked up my Foreclosure Sale Notice and listed my sale on the property’s Zillow page. In April, I wrote a post about the 500 phone calls and emails I received from all over the world, asking about the property.

In fact, I got one today from Detroit.

But, a few minutes later, I got a call about another Zillow listing, this time on a Sheriff’s Sale I’m conducting in August on 2137 Maricourt Street, Old Hickory, Tennessee 37138.

The full Notice of Sheriff’s Sale of Real Property can be found on The Wilson Post’s Public Announcements page. I have no idea how it ended up on Zillow, but anything that generates more potential bidders is good.

As indicated in the Sheriff’s Sale Notice, the property is scheduled for auction at 11:00AM, on August 3, 2021. The Sale Notice contains the terms of sale, including opening bid and the bidding process.

I post here in order provide a quick link to the Notice of Sale, which I’m planning to forward to potential bidders. This should present a great opportunity to a bidder.

In this strong real estate market, there are limited opportunities to find good deals on Middle Tennessee real property. The investors have long figured out foreclosure sales, then they figured out tax sales, and, now, Sheriff’s Sales are the next frontier. Sheriff’s Sales used to be rare–given that the process is fairly complex and confusing (even to lawyers)–but these are becoming more common, given the rise in property values and the unyielding demand for residential real estate.

As Zillow continues to grow into a trusted resource, though, I worry that a typical homebuyer may be lulled into seeing only the upsides of the potential deals listed on Zillow, without fully exploring the risks that distressed asset sales present.

I’m not suggesting that a buyer shouldn’t consider participating in a sheriff’s sale (seriously, please come on August 3), but I am encouraging every caller to educate themselves on the process and to consult with a real estate lawyer in advance.

Does Post-Judgment Interest change every six months? (Probably not)

I had an “in-person” court appearance yesterday morning, renewing and extending a judgment from 2011. As a creditor, old judgments can be a gold-mine, as home values have soared in Middle Tennessee, and a well placed judgment lien might have some equity.

Plus, it’s sort of nice to take a trip down memory lane, back to when creditors automatically got 10% interest on their judgments.

As long time readers know, in 2013, they revised the post-judgment interest rate statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-121, and switched to a variable (and lower) rate, subject to change every six months.

Yesterday, in my proposed Order Renewing Judgment that I handed up to the Judge, I included language that the renewed judgment would accrue interest “as provided in the original judgment, at the then applicable rate of interest under state law.”

The Judge asked me if that meant that interest was 10% over all of this time (and into the future) or, instead, was it a variable rate, changing each time the rate changes.

Well, Judge, that’s a legal question that drives hundreds of visitors to my creditor rights law blog every year.

The Judge asked me if I had a case or other authority to show whether or not the rate fluctuates. I hadn’t researched it (because it wasn’t really an issue on this unopposed Motion), so the Judge simply crossed out “then existing rate” and wrote in “applicable rate,” which punted the issue down the road.

But, we sort of have an answer, thanks to a local lawyer’s comment on this blog post from early last year:

From the TNCourts.gov website: “Beginning July 1, 2012, any judgment entered will have the interest set at two percent below the formula rate published by the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions as set in Public Chapter 1043. The rate does not fluctuate and remains in effect when judgment is entered.”

And, no, that’s not a case or a statutory cite. It’s just an introductory paragraph on the Administrative Office of the Courts website. But, it’s something. And, it’s as good as we’ve got for right now. “The rate does not fluctuate and remains in effect when judgment is entered.”

As a practical matter, the best practice would be to always use a specific interest rate in any judgments. Instead of saying post-judgment interest “as provided under Tennessee law” or at the “applicable post-judgment interest rate,” always just say the a specific rate, whether it’s 5.25% or 7.45%. This text would create a presumption of a specific, certain rate of interest going forward.

As more of these Great Recession era judgments come up for renewal and lenders are dusting off these pre-2013 judgments for execution against houses and defendants with drastically changed circumstances, I’m betting that, very soon, this is going to be an issue that a creditor is going to need briefed.

Tennessee’s Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process Can be Intimidating

Tennessee is a non-judicial foreclosure state.

What that means is that, when conducting a foreclosure, there is no need to file a lawsuit or get a court involved. Instead, the foreclosure attorney can do it all via a variety of paperwork, without any court involvement.

As a lender or foreclosing creditor, that’s pretty awesome, since you may be able to avoid legal expense and, in some cases, third party scrutinty. (Well, I mean, I only enforce liens that are 100% valid, so I have no issues with this, but some might.)

As a foreclosure attorney, however, a non-judicial process can be a little scary, since the success of the process rises or falls based entirely on your compliance with the statutes, relevant provisions of the deed of trust, and your own paperwork.

In fact, on the first foreclosure I ever handled all on my own, I was terrified by the process. I was so uncertain about the process that I actually talked the client into the benefits of conducting a judicial foreclosure (both because the facts were a little weird, and also because it sure felt reassuring to have a Judge “bless” my process via a court order).

Since then, I’ve done hundreds more foreclosures, but I still remember that initial uncertainty about doing such a significant legal process, all without any court or third party involvement.

The point of today’s post is to: (1) remind you that Tennessee is a non-judicial foreclosure state; and (2) note that, despite that, a creditor always has the ability to file a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure where the law or facts present a weird issue.

In the end, the real test of your compliance with all the requirements of the Deed of Trust and Tennessee statutes will the title company in the sale transaction when you go to sell the property to a later buyer. If you don’t get the process right, you’ll end up with a defective title and an unmarketable mess.

Good luck, new foreclosure attorneys.

Tennesee Legislature Expands Hours for Foreclosures

It’s always a surprise when I take a quick glance at a statute and discover a discrete, subtle change.

For instance, today, I was scheduling a foreclosure sale.

For years, the statute on “when” you could conduct the sale (Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-109) has said that a sale can be made on “any day Monday through Saturday” and “between the hours of ten o’clock a.m. (10:00 a.m.) and four o’clock p.m. (4:00 p.m.)” (excluding state or federal legal holidays).

Apparently, in 2017, the legislature changed Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-109 to expand the time of day you can do a sale. Now, you can conduct sales “between the hours of nine o’clock a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and seven o’clock p.m. (7:00 p.m.).”

Sometimes, the legislature works in mysterious ways. I have no idea why this was law was changed.

I understand the utility of allowing sales earlier in the day, but why allow them to be as late as 7pm at night? Who demanded this?

Oh well. I guess the good news is that I can coordinate my future foreclosures in Shelby County with the tip off for a Memphis Grizzlies game.

Tennessee Detainer Actions: Not Just for Tenants and Landlords

What if you own real property, but someone else has possession of the property, and you want them gone? You evict them. But, as you’ll see under Tennessee statutes, they don’t call it an “eviction” lawsuit; they call it a “detainer” lawsuit.

The statute in Tennessee is Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-104, titled “Unlawful Detainer.” That statute provides:

“Unlawful detainer is where the defendant enters by contract, either as tenant or as assignee of a tenant, or as personal representative of a tenant, or as subtenant, or by collusion with a tenant, and, in either case, willfully and without force, holds over the possession from the landlord, or the assignee of the remainder or reversion.”

These detainer actions are generally brought in general sessions court, where, as I’ve noted before, you can exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional limit. Also, even though general sessions appeals are very easy on most matters, they are complicated and expensive in general sessions court.

So, if you’re a landlord, you’re probably reading that statute and thinking it’s exactly what you need, right? But, what about if you’ve purchased the property, either by a typical sale or a foreclosure? In that case, you’re not a landlord, and the defendant isn’t entering by contract (i.e. lease). Does a different statute apply?

No, said the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Danny O. Daniels, W2015-00999-COA-R3-CV (Dec. 21, 2015). There, the Court noted that the Deed of Trust will create “a landlord/tenant relationship … between the foreclosure sale purchaser and the mortgagor in possession of the property,” and, as a result, “constructive possession is conferred on the foreclosure sale purchaser upon the passing of title; that constructive possession provides the basis for maintaining the unlawful detainer.”

In such a case, a plaintiff must prove: (1) its constructive possession of the property (i.e. ownership of the property); and (2) its loss of possession by the other party’s act of unlawful detainer.

In short, the detainer statutes in Tennessee aren’t well crafted. Sometimes they reference landlords and tenants; sometimes they don’t. Courts have a tendency to construe statutes as written and to assume that the legislature means what it says when it uses specific words. That’s bad news for the foreclosure sale purchaser, who isn’t a landlord and who isn’t dealing with a tenant.

Here, however, it’s clear that the legislature should have proofread the statutes a few more times. Fortunately, Tennessee courts have applied the statutes in a broader sense.

Tennessee Court of Appeals Issues First Opinion Examining Text of Tennessee Deficiency Statute

Remember two years ago, when I wrote about the new Tennessee deficiency judgment statute? That statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118, was designed to provide a defense to post-foreclosure deficiency lawsuits where the creditor failed to bid the actual “fair market value” of property at foreclosure. At the time, I said:

For most lenders, this new law should not have any practical impact. While you might imagine there would be various horror stories of lenders bidding $10,000 to buy a half-million property, in reality, most lenders were already calculating their foreclosure bids by starting at what the fair market value of the property is, and then subtracting sale expenses and carrying costs. The most prudent lenders have a standard procedure in place for all foreclosures, and many go the expense to order pre-foreclosure appraisals.

The reason I’m quoting myself so much is because the Tennessee Court of Appeals decided last week that my interpretation is correct. I take credit for this opinion, because I argued this case before the Court.

The case is GreenBank v. Sterling Ventures, et. al. , decided on December 7, 2012, (full text here). If you represent banks and creditors, particularly in foreclosures and collections, you must read this case and consider how your clients’ foreclosure bidding strategies compare with the Court’s decision.

This opinion is significant because it’s the first decision critically examining the text of Tenn. Code Ann. §35-5- 118 and deciding what “materially less” means. While that term sounds official, the phrase “materially less” has never been used in any other Tennessee statute or court opinion. Ever. As a result, a court deciding whether a foreclosure sale price is “materially less” than fair market value is faced with a completely blank slate.

At the trial court level, the Chancery Court had found, at summary judgment and as a matter of law, that a foreclosure sale price ranging between 88% and 91% of the Defendants’ highest alleged value was not “materially less.” On appeal, the Court agreed, explaining that the legislative history and goals of the new statute clearly indicated that a foreclosure bid price at 89% of the highest property value was not “materially less.” (The Court actually went a step further, based on a prior decision, and found that 86% would suffice.)

The matter was appropriate for decision at the summary judgment stage, because, even accepting the Defendants’ facts as true, the foreclosure sale price was still 89% of the Defendants’ highest values and, thus, was not “materially less” than fair market value under Tenn. Code Ann. §35-5- 118(c).

Here are my two take-aways from this decision:

A foreclosure bid of 86% is going to withstand this defense, so tell your bank clients to bid at least 86% of the highest alleged value (whether that be your appraisal, the defendant’s appraisal, or the tax card value).
Under the right facts, a creditor can prevail over a §35-5-118(c) defense at the summary judgment stage. The first time I saw this statute, my greatest concern wasn’t that my client would win or lose on this argument, but, instead, that this statute created a factual issue that would cause delay and require a trial (and, thus, I couldn’t prevail on a motion for summary judgment). This case shows that you can win such a motion.

This opinion is creditor-friendly, but not overly so. Keep in mind, a bank conducting a foreclosure must still bid at least 86% of a property’s highest value. Taking into account costs of the foreclosure, the costs of “owning” property, and other administrative costs associated with foreclosure, I question whether we’ll see a later opinion on different facts that affirms a lower percentage (65%-75%).

Construction Lenders: Don’t Wait to Visit the Construction Site to Check the Status of Work Progress

Not too long ago, even bad loans got repaid. With so much new money in the pipeline and refinance transactions always around the corner, errors in loan documents or lapses in lending oversight didn’t matter, because undiscovered issues never had time to blossom into problems. As a result, some lenders got lazy.

As this story from Memphis’ Commercial Appeal shows, Rusty Hyneman’s banker was really lazy. The worst part is the bank didn’t catch the issues until after approving the loans and, worse, advancing an incredible amount of money. When the bank did some basic post-transaction due diligence, the horses were already out of the barn.

After a customary review of active loans, the banker “hit the road to eyeball properties.” On this random visit to the construction site–11 months after loaning a total of $14 million–the banker must have been shocked to find that absolutely no work was being done on the project. Nothing.

That’s when the bank knew, obviously, there was a problem.

Here’s my advice to creditors: Take time to know your customers and know their projects. On a construction loan, occasionally drive past and make sure work is being done. Especially if you are actively advancing money to fund work at the site. Here, $4.9 million of the bank’s advances were to be used exclusively for construction at the project, and a quick drive-by could have saved millions of dollars.