Lenders are frequently confronted with questionable lender-liability claims not only from borrowers (usually in connection with collection or foreclosure procedures) but also from property managers unable to recover from borrowers. Claims property managers assert directly against lenders include those for breach of oral or written contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment (particularly if the lender has foreclosed its interest in the borrower’s property). Lenders can hedge against the risk of claims by property managers through a variety of methods, both pre- and post-borrower default.

As part of origination (or any subsequent review of the borrower’s property management agreement), the lender should ensure that the property management agreement clearly defines that the property manager can turn solely to the borrower for satisfaction of the property manager’s fees and expenses. Thorough property management agreements will also cap expenses the property manager is allowed to incur absent approval, which can help avoid successful

In July 2014, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) approved the Uniform Voidable Transaction Act (UVTA), a long-awaited update to the Uniform Fraudulent Transactions Act (UFTA). As the new title suggests, the UVTA, like the UFTA before it, encompasses a broader range of transactions than those traditionally deemed fraudulent and therefore avoidable under the common law. The amended Act clarifies and expands the burden of proof as well as presenting new challenges and opportunities to creditors seeking to avoid transfers by debtors operating under insolvent conditions. This development also has importance for creditors with claims in bankruptcy due to the bankruptcy trustee’s power to bring avoidance actions based on state law under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and thereby increase the assets available to repay debts.

Under the amended Act as before, creditors bringing constructive fraudulent transfer claims have the ability to avoid transactions which deprive the

A Memorandum of Decision recently entered in In re 56 Walker, LLC, Case No. 13-11571 (ALG), Bankr. S.D.N.Y. (Mar. 25, 2014), provides clear guidance as to the effect of a state court decision granting summary judgment in favor of a secured lender in a foreclosure action prior to the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing.  The collateral estoppel, res judicata and Rooker-Feldman doctrines each separately served as grounds for the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that it was unable to review the prior state court decision.

In 56 Walker, the Debtor’s sole asset was a six-story mixed-use building in New York, New York. The property was pledged as security for a mortgage loan with Broadway Bank. The Debtor defaulted, and Broadway Bank commenced a foreclosure action against the Debtor in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. After a first chapter 11 case was dismissed, MB Financial Bank, N.A. (having acquired the loan

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District has held that a borrower has standing to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure based on the alleged improper securitization of the borrower’s note and deed of trust. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2013). This is a minority view. Rejecting both the holding and reasoning of the Glaski court, and adopting the majority view, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California reached a contrary conclusion. Sandri v. Capital One, N.A., et al. (In re Sandri), No. 12-3165DM, 2013 WL 5925655 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2013).

I. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2013)

Factual Background and Procedural History:

In mid-2005, appellant Glaski obtained a purchase money loan from lender Washington Mutual Bank, FA

The 11th circuit is becoming easier on lenders who forget to continue financing statements post-bankruptcy, thanks to a recent Middle District of Florida Bankruptcy Court ruling in March in the Colony Resort bankruptcy. In re Colony Beach & Tennis Club Association, Inc., Case No. 13-00348, Bankr. M.D. Fla. (March 21, 2014). Colony Resort is a development in Longboat Key on the Gulf of Mexico, built in 1973. The resort had fallen on hard times, due in large part to condominium owner refusals to pay assessments, which in turn prevented needed renovations. The resort closed in 2010, followed by the bankruptcy filings of the resort’s related entities.

The entity that ran the resort was Colony Beach and Tennis Club, Ltd (the “Club”). The Club’s primary asset is a potential recovery in a pending lawsuit against the home owners’ association (the “Association”) for refusing to pay assessments. The Club’s primary secured creditor

In Ryerson, the court held that a debtor’s burden of showing a successful reorganization changes depending on the timing in the case. The court found that early in the case, a debtor must show that reorganization is “plausible,” near the expiration of the exclusivity period a debtor must show that reorganization is “probable,” and, after expiration of the exclusivity period, the debtor must show reorganization is “assured.”

I. Short Factual Background.

In 2003, the debtor, a real estate developer, used funds from a line of a credit to purchase acres of contiguous lakefront land on Lake Coeur d’Alene in Idaho. The debtor’s obligations under the line of credit were restated and evidenced by three promissory notes secured by liens on the property. In 2013, the debtor defaulted on his obligations and filed for chapter 11 relief less than two weeks prior to the scheduled foreclosure sale for the property. Twenty-six

On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Clark v. Rameker, Dkt. No. 13-299, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), holding that funds held in inherited Individual Retirement Accounts are not “retirement funds” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(c) and therefore not exempt from the bankruptcy estate. This opinion limits retirement funds that remain out of creditors’ reach when an individual files a bankruptcy case.

In Clark, Heidi Clark inherited a traditional IRA account established by her mother. Clark then filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and claimed the inherited IRA account as exempt from the bankruptcy estate under Section 522(b)(3)(C). The trustee and unsecured creditors objected, arguing that the inherited IRA funds were not “retirement funds” within the meaning of the statute.

The Court distinguished between inherited IRAs and traditional IRAs, noting that holders of inherited IRAs are prohibited from making contributions to those accounts,

Attorneys with secured lenders for clients may one day find themselves in the following hypothetical scenario: An attorney represents a secured lender in the workout of a loan that is owed by a small distressed borrower. The borrower finds a buyer for its assets (either in a § 363 sale or out-of-court short sale), and the borrower and buyer agree upon the basic terms of the sale transaction. However, the borrower’s counsel does not have the experience, time or resources to draft the sale transaction documents, so the responsibility to “just get it done” falls on the secured lender’s attorney, whose client has the biggest economic stake because it will likely receive most of the sale proceeds.

After the deal closes, it turns out that the borrower is subject to tax claims that could have been avoided if the sale had been done another way, or the borrower is stuck