Archive for the ‘deficiency judgments’ Category

Beware: Secondary Lien Holders Could Sue You…

Saturday, December 8th, 2012

If you are facing foreclosure and have more than one lien (mortgage), there is a new law that could greatly affect you. The California Supreme Court just denied review of a state appeal court ruling that allows second “purchase money” lien holders to sue homeowners for deficiency judgments after a first lien holder has foreclosed. Don’t worry, I’ll break it down in simple terms.

In California the homeowner is protected from lawsuits for the amount of the difference between what is owed on the mortgage, and what the home sells for at foreclosure auction (or even a short sale) – this is called a deficiency judgment. Other states allow lenders to sue homeowners for deficiency judgments, but California is a non-deficiency state. So if you only have one loan and are foreclosed upon, you are safe for now from a lawsuit by your lender.

The new ruling applies to secondary lien holders and foreclosures. Back in the boom of the real estate market many people took out two loans to purchase their homes. The second lienholder almost always loses big when there is a foreclosure, as there is not enough money to cover the debt owed to the first.

NOW, that second lender can sue the homeowner after the foreclosure for the deficiency, BUT only if the second lender is not the same lender as the first. (It is important to remember is that many loans are bought and sold on the secondary market, so even though you may originally have had two loans held by the same lender, one may have been sold. So it is imperative to know who your lienholders are before heading into a foreclosure).

It is very important for any homeowner facing foreclosure to contact an attorney to discuss their particular scenario, to make sure that you understand whether there is a chance you could be sued after foreclosure. Do not wait until the last minute – this could severely effect your options and what you could possibly do to avoid future lawsuits. For more information on this particular case, here is the citing: Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Lobel, 206 Cal.App. 4th 1531 (2012); 143 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 96.

 

Share
RSS Feed