Massachusetts Mortgage Holders Beware — Foreclosure Winning Bids May Now Need to Consider Development Potential of a Property
Under Massachusetts law, a foreclosing lender has a duty of good faith and reasonable diligence to obtain the highest possible price for a property at auction. Until recently, it was considered appropriate for the lender to make a credit bid up to the amount owed on the mortgage in order to satisfy this duty. However, a recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court has expanded the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence beyond a review of the property's assessed or appraised fair market value. A property's development potential may also need to be reviewed in order to calculate an acceptable winning bid.
In Property Acquisition Group, LLC v. Ivester, the property was auctioned for $355,000 to a third-party after the foreclosing lender credit bid up to the debt owed on the mortgage ($329,000). The borrower Ivester claimed a breach of the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence based on evidence that the lender did not obtain an appraisal, evaluation or expert opinion on the value of the nearly 5 acre property prior to foreclosure in order to justify its minimum bid or the eventual sale price. By contrast, Ivester had produced a property appraisal at $975,000 assuming variances from the town and additional site work to subdivide the property. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the lender, but the Appeals Court reversed.
The Appeals Court found that the foreclosing lender breached its duty of good faith and reasonable diligence at auction for failure to make any determination of the fair market value of the property. Specifically, the Court raised issue with the lender's failure to consider the development potential of the property. According to the Court, where Massachusetts allows non-judicial foreclosures, "it is imperative that the foreclosing mortgagee know or ensure that efforts are taken to ascertain the value of the property prior to the sale in order to protect the interests of the mortgagor." Citing law from 1897, the Appeals Court reiterated that a lender violates its duty with respect to an auction when it sells the property at an inadequate price without having made any efforts to determine if the sale price is reasonable, what the fair market value is, and whether the foreclosing entity could have obtained more value. Breach of this duty may result in damages awarded to the borrower comprising the difference between the value of the property and the actual auction sale price and renders the sale voidable.
Based on the Appeals Court's decision, foreclosing lenders may now need to review the development potential of a property in addition to its fair market value or appraised value in order to calculate an acceptable winning bid.
Topics
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- Article III Standing
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Auto-Dialer
- Automatic Telephone Dialing System
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Bitcoin
- Blockchain
- BNPL
- Business Records
- California
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Car Dealership
- CARES Act
- CCPA
- CDC
- CFPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Claim-Splitting
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Climate Change
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Commercial Foreclosure
- Communications
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Connecticut
- Connecticut Insurance Department
- Constitutional Claims
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- COVID-19
- CPRA
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Credit Reporting Agencies
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- cyber regulation
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Breach
- Data Privacy Laws
- Data Security
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Dispute
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Department of Financial Services
- DFPI
- DFS
- DFS Part 500
- Digital Financial Asset Law
- Disclosure
- Discovery Rule
- District of Columbia
- Document Retention
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- ECOA
- Economic Impact Payment
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Eleventh Amendment
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Eviction
- Excessive Fines Clause
- Executive Order
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Lending
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Administration
- Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Registration
- Financial Regulatory
- Financial Risk
- FinTech
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- FTC
- Furnishers
- GDPR
- hacking
- Hardship Declaration
- HealthTech
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Human Intervention Test
- Hunstein
- IDFPR
- Illinois
- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
- Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Investigation
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Kentucky
- kickbacks
- Lack of Standing
- Landlord and Tenant
- Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- LGBTQ
- Licensing
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Discharge
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Marketing Services Agreements
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Material Misrepresentation
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Debts
- Medical Expenses
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loan Acceleration
- Mortgage Loans
- Mortgage Servicers
- Mortgage Servicing
- Motion to Dismiss
- MSA
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York Department of Financial Services
- New York Legislation
- New York Real Property Procedures and Acts
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NMLS
- North Carolina
- North Carolina Consumer Finance Act
- North Dakota
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- NYCRA
- NYS DFS
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Origination
- Paragraph 22
- Part 500
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- PPP
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Preemption
- Privacy
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Right of Action
- Private Student Loans
- Property Rights
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Redlining
- referral fees
- Regulated Entities
- Regulated Non-Depositories
- Regulated Organizations
- Regulation
- Regulation X
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Relief
- Remote Working
- Residential Foreclosure
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right of Redemption
- Right to Cure
- Right to Cure Notice
- Right to Reinstate
- Risk Management
- Robocalls
- Rohit Chopra
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Separation of Powers
- Settlement
- Settlement Conference
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Standard of Proof
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stimulus
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Implications
- Tax Lien
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texas
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Unfair and Deceptive Practices
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Usury Laws
- Utah
- Video Conferencing
- Virginia
- Virtual Currency Business Act (VCBA)
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act