This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Home   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Article Library
Blog Home All Blogs

Kansas: Creatively Using Redemption Waivers in REO

Posted By USFN, Friday, October 21, 2022

By Blair Gisi, Esq.

SouthLaw,PC*

USFN Member (IA, KS, MO, NE)

 

With the housing shortage continuing, some companies in Kansas are getting creative with how they are replenishing their inventory. It is becoming more and more common for title work ordered in anticipation of a foreclosure to include a recent conveyance from the borrowers to a business entity. The parties intend to convey redemption rights to that entity by virtue of a deed, given that K.S.A. §60-2414(a) provides very clearly that a “defendant owner may redeem real property” following the Sheriff’s Sale. 

            K.S.A §60-2414(a) also provides that:

            . . . . Except for mortgages covering agricultural lands or for mortgages covering single or two-family dwellings owned by or held in trust for natural persons owning or holding such dwelling as their residence, the mortgagor may agree in the mortgage instrument to a shorter period of redemption than 12 months or may wholly waive the period of redemption.

            In other words, where a single-family residence is no longer owned by a natural person and the subject mortgage includes a redemption-waiver clause, a lender may be entitled to wholly waive any redemption period.

            Now, if a defendant owner can show the trial court that the property is being held as their primary residence, redemption waiver may not be appropriate. However, with a vacant property, or in a situation where the defendant owners are renting the property or generally no longer using the property as their primary residence, there should be no issue with successfully arguing the redemption period was waived; and with the redemption period waived, the lender [KSJ1]is entitled to a Sheriff’s Deed immediately following the Sheriff’s Sale.

            The case law is light on this pursuit in this context, so best practices likely warrant a discussion between the law firm and the lender/investor before alleging the redemption is waived. However, under the right circumstances, this statute could prove useful as a powerful REO tool.

           


 [KSJ1]I don’t know Kansas law, but should this be “purchaser” to cover cases where a third party buys at Sheriff’s Sale?

 

 

Copyright @2022

Fall 2022 USFN Report

Tags:  Kansas  REO/Eviction 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

California Governor Signs Statewide Rent Control Bill

Posted By USFN, Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Updated: Monday, February 3, 2020


by Kayo Manson-Tompkins, Esq.

The Wolf Firm

USFN Member (CA, ID, OR, WA)


California has painstaking rent control and eviction control ordinances in cities such as Los Angeles, Santa Monica, San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, to name a few. Historically, however, in reality there have only been a few cities with rent control ordinances. Therefore, for most of California the standard process for post-foreclosure evictions has been used. The California legislature introduced and passed Assembly Bill 1482 designed to establish statewide rent control and despite opposition from landlords and mortgage servicers, the Governor signed the bill, which became effective January 1, 2020.

The primary purpose of this bill was to prevent landlords throughout the state from arbitrarily raising rental amounts. This Bill caps rental increases to 5% plus inflation, or 10%, whichever is lower. The Act will sunset January 1, 2030.

New Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 became effective January 1, 2020. These sections prohibit property owners from terminating a lease of a tenant who has been occupying the property for 12 months, without “just cause” and the “cause” must be stated within the notice. Additionally, there is a new requirement that a notice of violation and opportunity to cure must be served before the notice of termination, for those instances where the violation is curable. Furthermore, a no-fault “just cause” eviction will require relocation assistance of at least the equivalent of one month’s rent. If the relocation is not paid, the notice of termination will be declared void. These provisions cannot be waived by the tenant, and if an attempt is made to do so, the waiver of rights provision will be declared void. It is important to note that despite the “statewide” provisions there is nothing to prevent existing local rent control and eviction control ordinances from having a higher level of protection for their tenants.  

Pursuant to the California Constitution (Cal Const, Art. XI § 7), California rent control and eviction control provisions are a valid exercise of a city’s police power within that city’s own jurisdiction. More specifically it states that “a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws”. The scope of this police power is subject to displacement by general state law where the charter or ordinance purports to regulate a field fully occupied by state law. (Birkenfeld v. Berkeley, (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 129).

California has 482 cities and for those cities that do not currently have a rent or eviction control ordinance, they may opt to simply abide by the provisions of the newly enacted statutes. Cities may however, if they want additional requirements, to create their own “rent control” ordinance or a “just cause” eviction ordinance. The question remains what existing ordinance(s) will become the template for drafting their ordinance. Property owners can only hope that the majority of cities will either elect to simply follow the limited provisions of Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 or alternatively create uniform more limited ordinances, as opposed to mirroring the rigorous existing ordinances in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, by way of example.  

Servicers should ensure that they have procedures in place s to determine who is occupying the property as soon after the foreclosure sale as possible. Furthermore, it is imperative that the eviction attorney be notified of whether there are tenants in the property, as the type of occupancy will require different notices, as well as a relocation fee in order to remove tenants from the premises.

This article is not intended to be an extensive or exhaustive review of all the nuances of either rent control or just cause eviction control ordinances, but rather an introductory overview of what the new statewide rent control statutes provide and how it affects the ability of a servicer to proceed with a normal post-foreclosure eviction.


Copyright © 2020 USFN. All rights reserved.

 

Winter USFN Report

 

Tags:  Assembly Bill 1482  California  REO/Eviction 

PermalinkComments (0)
 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal