PLG NEWSNews + updates + recent press
|
Archives
January 2025
December 2024
October 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
February 2024
August 2023
May 2023
April 2023
January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
Amendments have been proposed for seven Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. If these amendments take effect, it will change how foreclosures are handled in the State of Florida. Below, please find a synopsis of the proposed amendments and their potential impacts as evaluated by PLG: Padgett Law Group successfully argues that an action for foreclosure of a mortgage securing a time-barred note can be maintained in Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC v. D'Apolito, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 23 MA 0028, 2024-Ohio-825. In D'Apolito, the borrower appealed the decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment to Plaintiff and ordering foreclosure of the mortgage asserting that the trial court erred in “failing to conclude the expiration of the statute of limitations on a note necessarily barred the action on the mortgage securing the debt.” The borrower based his argument upon, "Long-standing Ohio Supreme Court precedent holds that when action on a promissory note is time-barred, then foreclosure of a mortgage securing that note is time-barred as well." Introduced in the Senate on January 23, 2023, and referred to committee on February 8, 2023, Ohio Senate Bill 25, known in short form as the Bill that “regards real property foreclosures,” sponsored by Senator Bob D. Hackett (R), seeks to alter the procedures for foreclosure sales. Chapter 2329 of the Ohio Revised Code currently governs execution upon judgments, including sales of real property resulting from foreclosure actions. SB25 proposes four significant changes to the foreclosure sale process that could result in a reduction in the length of time and cost of the foreclosure sale process: The Ohio Legislature is currently considering Senate Bill 334, titled (in short) “Grant certain bidders rights – foreclosed residential property,” which seeks to amend section 2329.27 and to enact sections 2329.261 and 2329.313 of the Revised Code to grant tenants and certain other eligible bidders rights relating to the purchase of residential property sold through the process of foreclosure. The Bill applies to foreclosure sales of one to four family residential properties, and requires the selling officer, whether sheriff or private selling officer, to include in its sale advertisement, the following notice: "NOTICE TO TENANTS AND OTHER ELIGIBLE BIDDERS: You may have a right to purchase this property after the sale pursuant to R.C. 2329.313. If you are an "eligible-tenant buyer," you can purchase the property if you match the successful bid placed at the sale. If you are an "eligible bidder," you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the successful bid placed at the sale. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, two calendar days after the date of the sale, you can call [telephone number for information regarding the sale], or visit this web site [web site address for information regarding the sale], using the file number assigned to this case [case file number] to find the date on which the sale was held, the amount of the successful bid, and the address of the person who conducted the sale. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the person who conducted the sale receives it not more than fifteen days after the date of the sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the person who conducted the sale receives it not more than forty-five days after the date of the sale. If you think you may qualify as an "eligible tenant-buyer" or "eligible bidder," you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase.” In an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal found that a Trial Judge’s Order went too far when it forbade the borrower in a foreclosure case, who had surrendered the real property at issue in an earlier bankruptcy, to contest the foreclosure “in any manner” due to that bankruptcy surrender. In reversing in part, the Court of Appeal held that there are circumstances where a borrower may be allowed to challenge some aspects of a foreclosure case; for example, in the amounts due and owing, or other limited circumstances that may have arisen post-bankruptcy. Importantly, however, in affirming, the Second District Court of Appeal also ruled that surrender in a bankruptcy case means that in a subsequent foreclosure case a borrower is not entitled to challenge the lender’s own entitlement to foreclose. “Because the debtor’s interest has been surrendered, the debtor is no longer entitled to challenge the entitlement to foreclose the debtor’s former legal interest.” Note that this opinion is not final yet. On March 31, 2022, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued its second decision relating to the collection of mortgage interest during the pandemic. At the beginning of the initial surge of COVID-19, the Indiana Supreme Court had granted Marion County Courts’ request to toll the time in which a litigant must meet deadlines and comply with rules of procedure. The emergency order granted relief beginning March 16, 2020, and stated that “no interest shall be due or charged during the tolled period”. By further orders, this tolling period was extended through August 14, 2020. Based upon those emergency orders, a trial court issued a judgment and decree of foreclosure that excluded interest due under the terms of the note and mortgage for the period of March 16, 2020, through August 14, 2020. In PNC Bank v. Page, the mortgage lender asked the Court to overrule the trial court’s decision to remove that portion of interest, arguing that the emergency order’s tolling of interest could not apply to foreclosure cases. The lender pointed to Governor Holcomb’s Executive Order 20-06, which temporarily suspended the prosecution of foreclosure and eviction actions in Indiana, and explicitly stated that the suspension does not relieve a borrower’s obligations under a mortgage. Previously, the Indiana Court of Appeals had found that post-judgment interest could not be tolled by Indiana courts because it is awarded to the judgment holder by statute and falls under the legislative powers of the state. Denman v. St. Vincent Med. Grp., Inc., Ind. Ct. App. 2021. By the same reasoning, the Court agreed with the lender and held that the tolling period does not apply to pre-judgment interest in a mortgage foreclosure. Impact on Servicers and Lenders in Indiana This pair of rulings is great news for mortgage lenders in Indiana. The somewhat contradictory orders issued by Indiana’s legislative and judicial branches have led to inconsistent rulings in mortgage foreclosures over the past 18 months. Now that the apparent contradiction has been resolved, lenders can rest easy that their standard interest calculations are enforceable in Indiana. Questions? This post was prepared by Caryn Beougher, Esq, an attorney in PLG's Indianapolis, Indiana office. Contact us here. |
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. |
Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
|