Real Estate Law

Closing Attorneys and Paralegals: Want to toss and turn at night?

Standard

Read about this costly law firm mistake.

(This case makes my stomach hurt because a developer client of mine once declared bankruptcy. Everything I had done for that client for the prior three years was scrutinized, and I spent some sleepless nights!)

On January 21, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Pepto in Manhattan decided a direct appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court involving a mistaken UCC-3 termination statement.* This case involves the General Motors bankruptcy.

The facts concern a 2008 payoff by GM to JP Morgan Chase of a $300 million synthetic lease. GM contacted its outside counsel to prepare the necessary documents. A partner assigned the work to an associate and instructed him to prepare a closing checklist and drafts of the necessary documents. The associate asked a paralegal who was unfamiliar with the transaction to perform a UCC search that search identified three UCC-1s. Two of the UCC-1s related to the subject loan. The third, however, was related to a term loan between the same parties. The law firm prepared UCC-3 terminations for all three financing statements.

No one at GM, its law firm, JP Morgan or its law firm noticed the error. When the loan was paid, all three
UCC-3s were filed.

The mistake was not noticed until GM filed bankruptcy in 2009.

In litigation with the unsecured creditors, JP Morgan argued that the third UCC-3 was unauthorized and ineffective because it intended to terminate only the liens that related to the synthetic lease. The Bankruptcy Court agreed on the grounds that no one at JP Morgan or its law firm intended to terminate the third UCC-1.

The Second Circuit certified a question to the Delawarecourt money 4 Supreme Court, asking, basically, whether a termination is effective when a lender reviews and knowingly approves a termination statement for filing or whether the lender must intend to terminate the particular security interest. The Delaware Court replied that intent is not necessary, stating, “If parties could be relieved from the legal consequences of their mistaken filings, they would have little incentive to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in their UCC filings.”

The Second Circuit agreed, indicating JP Morgan authorized the termination even though it never intended to.

Lawyers and paralegals: be careful, be careful, be careful! And now try to get a good night’s sleep!

* Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,  Docket No. 13-2187, January 21, 2015.

Need to Foreclose a Mortgage Securing an eNote?

Standard

Indiana case may provide guidance

South Carolina has no reported opinions concerning mortgage foreclosures involving eNotes, and little authority exists elsewhere on what a holder must prove to successfully foreclose a mortgage secured by an electronic note in a judicial state. Until we see opinions closer to home, an Indiana case may provide the best guidance. Solid evidence of control of the note seems to be the key factor, according to this case.

In Good v. Wells Fargo Bank, 18 N.E.3d 618court money 4 (Ind. App. 2014), Wells Fargo acted as servicer for Fannie Mae, the owner of an eNote that was registered with MERS. The original lender had been Synergy Mortgage Group, Inc.  MERS, as nominee for Synergy, had assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo.

An officer of Wells Fargo executed an affidavit in support of summary  judgment stating that Wells was the servicer, that it maintained a copy of the note, that its systems provided controls to assure that each note was maintained accurately and protected against alteration, and that the paper copy of the note attached to the affidavit was a true and correct copy.

The affidavit was bolstered by testimony at the bench trial that Wells Fargo controlled the note and was entitled to enforce it as the holder pursuant to 15 U.S.C §7021 (a section of the eSign legislation).  Wells’ underlying position appeared to be that the normal requirements of the UCC-3 governing negotiable instruments (delivery, possession and an endorsement), were not required in the case of an electronic note.

15 U.S.C. §7021 creates the concept of a note as a “transferable record”, a single authoritative copy, which is unique, identifiable, and unalterable. The legislation establishes that the holder must have control of the note in the sense that the system for tracking it must reliably establish that the person seeking to enforce it is the person to whom the record was transferred. Also, the authoritative copy of the record itself must indicate the identity of the most recent transferee.

The Indiana appellate court found Wells’ affidavit insufficient to support a grant of summary judgment on the issue of Wells’ holder status and its evidence on the matter at trial “conclusory”. 

The court said it was unclear from the affidavit whether Wells was claiming to have possession of an endorsed paper copy or the electronic note itself. The affidavit was also found lacking because it did not assert that Wells had control of the record (the eNote), either by maintaining the single authoritative copy in its own system, or by being identified as having control of the single authoritative copy in the MERS system.

The court indicated the eSign statutes require the party enforcing the note to provide reasonable proof of its control of the note through detailed evidence, not merely “conclusory statement”. The court specifically pointed to the lack of evidence in the Wells’ affidavit as it related to a transfer or assignment to Wells Fargo or Fannie Mae of the note from the original lender.

We are likely to see similar cases from other jurisdictions, including South Carolina, with the increasing use of eNotes. Stay tuned!stay tuned

Mobile Home Claims Continue

Standard

What do a hurricane, a tornado and a redneck divorce have in common?
Somebody’s fixin’ to lose a mobile home!

Trailer Park Treehouse

That joke may be attributable to Jeff Foxworthy, Lewis Grizzard or some other Southern comedian.  Regardless, a large number of South Carolinians lost mobile homes during the economic downturn, most often as a result of foreclosures rather than the disasters in the joke. Foreclosures uncover title issues that lead to title insurance policy claims. Because our office continues to see mobile home claims on almost a weekly basis, this reminder might be in order for residential real estate practitioners.

When sales and mortgages of real estate including mobile homes are closed, titles to the mobile homes should be retired, and ALTA 7 series endorsements should be issued.

If a title examination reveals a recorded Manufactured Home Affidavit for Retirement of Title Certificate, it is advisable to request from the Department of Motor Vehicles a letter confirming that the title has been placed on the DMV’s list of retired vehicles.

If no Manufactured Home Affidavit has been filed locally, then follow our statutory process to retire the title. The Affidavit requires the owner to:

  • install the home on the real property;
  • remove the wheels, axles and towing hitch;
  • attach proof of ownership (the deed);
  • attach a copy of the certificate of occupancy; and
  • pay the recording fee.

Surrendering the certificate of title to the DMV requires:

  • a filed copy of the Manufactured Home Affidavit from the ROD;trailer duck
  • the original certificate of title with either releases of liens or consents of secured parties;
  • a copy of the most recent tax receipt for the manufactured home; and
  • payment of the DMV fee.

When the title is retired, it is safe to issue an ALTA 7 series endorsement. Your title company will appreciate compliance with these guidelines.

And here’s a practice tip. Our former boss, Nancy Booco, always said, “If it looks like a mobile home, it probably is one.”

Georgia On My Mind

Standard

GA Supreme Court takes a page from our playbook and prohibits “witness only” closings

On September 22, 2014, The Supreme Court of Georgia issued an opinion approving the State Bar’s Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1, which states that a Georgia licensed lawyer may not ethically conduct a “witness only” closing.

georgia with flagThe Court indicated a “witness only” closing occurs when an individual presides over the execution of closing documents but purports to do so merely as a witness and notary and not as someone who is practicing law. In order to protect the public from those not properly trained or qualified to render these services, lawyers are required to “be in control of the closing process from beginning to end,” according to the opinion.

The opinion also requires the closing attorney to review the closing documents, resolve errors in the paperwork, and detect and resolve ambiguities in title and title defects, indicating, “A lawyer conducting a real estate closing may use documents prepared by others after ensuring their accuracy, making necessary revisions, and adopting the work.”

The closing lawyer must “review and adopt” the work used in a closing, even if he or she didn’t prepare that work.  Georgia law allows title insurance companies and others to examine title records, prepare abstracts and issue related insurance.  And other persons may provide attorneys with paralegal and clerical services, so long as “at all times the attorney receiving the information or services shall maintain full professional and direct responsibility to his clients for the information and services received.”

The obligation to review, revise, approve and adopt documents used in closings applies to “the entire series of events that comprise a closing.”

I’m a South Carolina dirt lawyer, so I don’t have the background to comment at length on this opinion, but from my bank of the Savannah River, it seems this opinion places closing lawyers in a precarious position, not unlike the position of our Bidding on a homepractitioners. We don’t necessarily have to perform all aspects of closings, but we do have to supervise and take professional responsibility for the entire closing.  We have learned how difficult it is to supervise third parties and take responsibility for their work.  The Georgia Bar asked for this opinion.  I hope they like it!

Surely Dave Whitener is smiling down from heaven at this effort to rein in the unauthorized practice of law!

Embrace ALTA’s Best Practices

Standard

 BestPractices2Some real estate practitioners are furiously bringing themselves into compliance with ALTA’s Best Practices, while others are furiously ignoring the entire topic or, at best, waiting until they hear marching orders from lenders. I propose that we all step to the plate and embrace Best Practices.

Residential practitioners can and should use compliance as a marketing tool. Some commercial practitioners are assuming that when lenders become educated and begin demanding compliance from residential practitioners, they will naturally ask for the same or similar compliance from commercial practitioners. Striving for compliance is an opportunity for all practitioners to demonstrate to their clients, to real estate agents and to lenders their value in real estate transactions.

ALTA is now encouraging practitioners to conduct a self-assessment of their adoption of Best Practices by September of 2014. Time may be of the essence because a practitioner may first hear marching orders from a lender in connection with a specific real estate closing. If it is impossible to demonstrate compliance quickly, that closing will likely be lost to someone who is better prepared.Best-Practice-processes

I am convinced that the numbers of residential real estate practitioners in South Carolina will be drastically reduced in the next year or two. Attorneys approaching retirement age may decide to retire rather than to learn how to use the new forms. Large law firms  who handle commercial transactions may decide that residential transactions are no longer worth the effort. Left standing will be the practitioners who embrace this change and tackle it now. There is opportunity for growth for those who act wisely in the face of change.

Title insurance companies are willing and able to help and have resources that can ease the pain. But no outsider can do the actual work. Each pillar requires careful consideration from a management standpoint, and only the closing attorneys themselves can make the necessary decisions for implementation. Each pillar will require on-going demonstration of compliance. Files must be papered. Calendars must be tickled. Software and hardware must be kept current. Compliance will not be a matter of establishing written procedures and continuing business as usual. We should establish a culture of compliance and make it the responsibility of all employees.

I can’t say this strongly enough: At some point, practitioners will either have to embrace compliance or get out of the game. The time to act is now.

If you want to continue to handle residential real estate transactions, call your title insurance company today and ask for assistance in nailing down each pillar.