Even If Done With Good Intentions, Damaging Property Can Lead to Post-Foreclosure Liability For Borrowers

A recent appellate court decision has expanded the potential recovery a lender may pursue against a defaulting borrower.  In Fait v. New Faze Development Inc., the Third District Court of Appeal significantly expanded an exception to California's anti-deficiency rules in cases of bad faith waste.

Fait involved a purchase money loan where the borrowers purchased property planning to replace the existing building with a new mixed-use development.  After evicting the tenants and demolishing the building, the borrowers defaulted on the loan.  The lenders foreclosed non-judicially under their deed of trust, and then sued the borrowers for waste relying upon the 1975 case of Cornelison v. Kornbluth that gave lenders the ability to sue for damages for waste after a non-judicial foreclosure if the waste was committed in bad faith.  The trial court found in favor of the defendants, holding that because the demolition was motivated by a good faith belief that the property could be developed, the waste (demolition of the building) was not done in bad faith.

The appellate court reversed, holding that an action for bad faith waste did not require that the plaintiff lender prove “recklessness and intent to despoil at the time of demolition."  Instead, according to the ruling in Fait, regardless of the borrower’s motives or intentions, any act that damages the lender's security and is not committed “solely or primarily as a result of the economic pressures of a market depression" qualifies as bad faith waste for purposes of the anti-deficiency statutes.

The court's expanded definition of bad faith waste is so broad that potentially any intentional or negligent act that reduces the value of real property security is potentially a basis for a bad faith waste claim by a lender.  Consequently, lenders may have a post-foreclosure avenue for recovery against borrowers who damage or destroy improvements without obtaining their lenders’ consent before doing so.

Please click here to view our previous advisory on how disgruntled borrowers are more likely to sue lenders for fraud as a result of a recent California Supreme Court decision.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hopkins & Carley | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.