When a business mortgage lending institution sets out to impose a mortgage loan following a customer default, a crucial objective is to identify the most expeditious way in which the lender can acquire control and possession of the underlying security. Under the right set of situations, a deed in lieu of foreclosure can be a much faster and more affordable alternative to the long and drawn-out foreclosure process. This article talks about actions and concerns lending institutions ought to think about when making the choice to continue with a deed in lieu of foreclosure and how to avoid unexpected dangers and obstacles during and following the deed-in-lieu process.

Consideration
hudsoncondos.com
A crucial aspect of any contract is guaranteeing there is appropriate factor to consider. In a standard deal, factor to consider can quickly be developed through the purchase rate, but in a deed-in-lieu circumstance, confirming sufficient consideration is not as straightforward.

In a deed-in-lieu situation, the quantity of the underlying financial obligation that is being forgiven by the lending institution normally is the basis for the factor to consider, and in order for such factor to consider to be considered "adequate," the financial obligation needs to at least equivalent or surpass the reasonable market price of the subject residential or commercial property. It is important that lenders obtain an independent third-party appraisal to substantiate the value of the residential or commercial property in relation to the quantity of debt being forgiven. In addition, its recommended the deed-in-lieu agreement consist of the borrower's express acknowledgement of the reasonable market worth of the residential or commercial property in relation to the quantity of the debt and a waiver of any possible claims related to the adequacy of the factor to consider.

Clogging and Recharacterization Issues

Clogging is shorthand for a primary rooted in ancient English typical law that a debtor who protects a loan with a mortgage on genuine estate holds an unqualified right to redeem that residential or commercial property from the lending institution by paying back the debt up until the point when the right of redemption is lawfully extinguished through a proper foreclosure. Preserving the borrower's equitable right of redemption is the reason, prior to default, mortgage loans can not be structured to contemplate the voluntary transfer of the residential or commercial property to the lending institution.

Deed-in-lieu deals prevent a customer's fair right of redemption, however, steps can be taken to structure them to restrict or avoid the risk of an obstructing difficulty. Firstly, the reflection of the transfer of the residential or commercial property in lieu of a foreclosure must occur post-default and can not be pondered by the underlying loan documents. Parties must likewise be cautious of a deed-in-lieu plan where, following the transfer, there is a continuation of a debtor/creditor relationship, or which contemplate that the debtor keeps rights to the residential or commercial property, either as a residential or commercial property manager, a renter or through repurchase choices, as any of these arrangements can create a risk of the transaction being recharacterized as a fair mortgage.

Steps can be required to mitigate versus recharacterization threats. Some examples: if a customer's residential or commercial property management functions are limited to ministerial functions rather than substantive choice making, if a lease-back is short term and the payments are clearly structured as market-rate usage and tenancy payments, or if any arrangement for reacquisition of the residential or commercial property by the borrower is set up to be completely independent of the condition for the deed in lieu.

While not determinative, it is suggested that deed-in-lieu agreements consist of the parties' clear and unquestionable recognition that the transfer of the residential or commercial property is an absolute conveyance and not a transfer of for security purposes just.

Merger of Title

When a lender makes a loan protected by a mortgage on real estate, it holds an interest in the property by virtue of being the mortgagee under a mortgage (or a recipient under a deed of trust). If the lender then gets the genuine estate from a defaulting mortgagor, it now likewise holds an interest in the residential or commercial property by virtue of being the fee owner and acquiring the mortgagor's equity of redemption.

The basic rule on this issue supplies that, where a mortgagee acquires the fee or equity of redemption in the mortgaged residential or commercial property, and there is no intermediate estate, merger of the mortgage interest into the fee happens in the absence of proof of a contrary intent. Accordingly, when structuring and recording a deed in lieu of foreclosure, it is very important the contract clearly shows the parties' intent to retain the mortgage lien estate as distinct from the charge so the loan provider maintains the ability to foreclose the underlying mortgage if there are intervening liens. If the estates combine, then the loan provider's mortgage lien is extinguished and the lending institution loses the capability to deal with stepping in liens by foreclosure, which could leave the lender in a possibly worse position than if the lending institution pursued a foreclosure from the start.

In order to plainly reflect the celebrations' intent on this point, the deed-in-lieu arrangement (and the deed itself) ought to consist of reveal anti-merger language. Moreover, since there can be no mortgage without a debt, it is traditional in a deed-in-lieu circumstance for the loan provider to deliver a covenant not to sue, instead of a straight-forward release of the debt. The covenant not to take legal action against furnishes factor to consider for the deed in lieu, protects the borrower against exposure from the financial obligation and likewise maintains the lien of the mortgage, consequently enabling the lender to keep the capability to foreclose, must it end up being desirable to remove junior encumbrances after the deed in lieu is total.

Transfer Tax

Depending upon the jurisdiction, handling transfer tax and the payment thereof in deed-in-lieu transactions can be a significant sticking point. While a lot of states make the payment of transfer tax a seller responsibility, as a useful matter, the loan provider ends up soaking up the cost considering that the customer remains in a and typically does not have funds.

How transfer tax is calculated on a deed-in-lieu transaction is reliant on the jurisdiction and can be a driving force in identifying if a deed in lieu is a practical alternative. In California, for example, a conveyance or transfer from the mortgagor to the mortgagee as a result of a foreclosure or a deed in lieu will be exempt as much as the amount of the debt. Some other states, consisting of Washington and Illinois, have simple exemptions for deed-in-lieu deals. In Connecticut, however, while there is an exemption for deed-in-lieu deals it is limited only to a transfer of the borrower's personal home.

For a business transaction, the tax will be determined based on the complete purchase cost, which is expressly specified as including the amount of liability which is presumed or to which the real estate is subject. Similarly, however a lot more potentially drastic, New York bases the quantity of the transfer tax on "factor to consider," which is specified as the overdue balance of the financial obligation, plus the overall amount of any other enduring liens and any amounts paid by the beneficiary (although if the loan is totally option, the factor to consider is topped at the reasonable market value of the residential or commercial property plus other amounts paid). Bearing in mind the loan provider will, in the majority of jurisdictions, need to pay this tax again when ultimately offering the residential or commercial property, the specific jurisdiction's guidelines on transfer tax can be a determinative consider deciding whether a deed-in-lieu deal is a feasible alternative.

Bankruptcy Issues

A significant concern for lending institutions when figuring out if a deed in lieu is a practical option is the concern that if the borrower becomes a debtor in a personal bankruptcy case after the deed in lieu is complete, the insolvency court can cause the transfer to be unwound or set aside. Because a deed-in-lieu deal is a transfer made on, or account of, an antecedent debt, it falls directly within subsection (b)( 2) of Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with preferential transfers. Accordingly, if the transfer was made when the borrower was insolvent (or the transfer rendered the customer insolvent) and within the 90-day period set forth in the Bankruptcy Code, the borrower becomes a debtor in an insolvency case, then the deed in lieu is at threat of being reserved.

Similarly, under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, a transfer can be set aside if it is made within one year prior to an insolvency filing and the transfer was made for "less than a reasonably comparable worth" and if the transferor was insolvent at the time of the transfer, became insolvent because of the transfer, was engaged in a business that maintained an unreasonably low level of capital or intended to incur debts beyond its capability to pay. In order to reduce versus these dangers, a lending institution must thoroughly examine and evaluate the debtor's financial condition and liabilities and, ideally, require audited financial declarations to verify the solvency status of the customer. Moreover, the deed-in-lieu contract must consist of representations as to solvency and a covenant from the debtor not to apply for insolvency during the preference period.

This is yet another reason it is important for a lender to procure an appraisal to confirm the value of the residential or commercial property in relation to the debt. A present appraisal will help the lending institution refute any claims that the transfer was made for less than reasonably comparable value.

Title Insurance

As part of the preliminary acquisition of a real residential or commercial property, a lot of owners and their lenders will obtain policies of title insurance to protect their respective interests. A lending institution thinking about taking title to a residential or commercial property by virtue of a deed in lieu might ask whether it can count on its lender's policy when it ends up being the charge owner. Coverage under a lending institution's policy of title insurance coverage can continue after the acquisition of title if title is taken by the same entity that is the called insured under the loan provider's policy.

Since many loan providers choose to have title vested in a separate affiliate entity, in order to make sure continued coverage under the loan provider's policy, the named loan provider must designate the mortgage to the intended affiliate title holder prior to, or concurrently with, the transfer of the cost. In the alternative, the loan provider can take title and after that convey the residential or commercial property by deed for no factor to consider to either its parent business or a completely owned subsidiary (although in some jurisdictions this could activate transfer tax liability).

Notwithstanding the continuation in protection, a lending institution's policy does not transform to an owner's policy. Once the lender ends up being an owner, the nature and scope of the claims that would be made under a policy are such that the lending institution's policy would not supply the exact same or an adequate level of security. Moreover, a lending institution's policy does not get any protection for matters which occur after the date of the mortgage loan, leaving the lending institution exposed to any concerns or claims originating from occasions which take place after the original closing.

Due to the truth deed-in-lieu deals are more susceptible to challenge and risks as outlined above, any title insurance provider providing an owner's policy is most likely to undertake a more rigorous review of the transaction during the underwriting process than they would in a normal third-party purchase and sale deal. The title insurer will inspect the parties and the deed-in-lieu documents in order to recognize and mitigate risks presented by concerns such as merger, blocking, recharacterization and insolvency, therefore possibly increasing the time and expenses associated with closing the transaction, but ultimately providing the loan provider with a higher level of security than the lending institution would have absent the title company's participation.

Ultimately, whether a deed-in-lieu transaction is a viable alternative for a lender is driven by the specific facts and circumstances of not just the loan and the residential or commercial property, but the celebrations involved as well. Under the right set of situations, and so long as the proper due diligence and paperwork is gotten, a deed in lieu can supply the lending institution with a more effective and less costly means to recognize on its collateral when a loan enters into default.

Harris Beach Murtha's Commercial Property Practice Group is experienced with deed in lieu of foreclosures. If you need assistance with such matters, please reach out to lawyer Meghan A. Hayden at (203) 772-7775 and mhayden@harrisbeachmurtha.com, or the Harris Beach lawyer with whom you most frequently work.