patent the word
If you deal with receiverships, this case, you may be of interest. A lenders, borrowers, and a court-appointed receiver have been fighting each other in an Indiana federal court in connection with a construction project not. Problems with a partial-apartment complex who are so much in a foreclosure suit that a judge condemned the property and ordered it demolished, resulting in damages alleged by the borrower of $ 4,167,881 (which is the alleged value of the property, for the value of minus the foundations of the building after the demolition). In Judge Philip P. Simon 's words, "the assessment of the blame for this chaos is at the heart of the action currently before the court." In the document judgments September 18, 2006 and 16 October 2006, the Northern District of judges Simon brought some order into the chaos in the matter. 2:02 cv368, Four Winds v. American Express Tax and Consulting Services, et al. The citation of the September opinion that the borrower of the claims against the beneficiary, is 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71349. The October opinion, which addresses the cause of action against the lender, see 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75581.
Spanked lenders. The dispute began when the lender decided to foreclosure. The borrower filed a counterclaim bankruptcy claims wrongful foreclosure, since there was no standard. The borrower convinced the court that no default occurred, so the court dismissed the foreclosure aspect of the case. The lender then the lender for a "high number" on the counter-claims.
Receiver process faces. The borrower is also the recipient of the prosecution for negligent not to protect and maintain the project. An agreed order to the recipient, the behavior and the question is whether the receiver was grossly negligent. The recipient will be a dismissal of the claim by showing that there is no gross negligence. In fact, the recipient agrees, at least some measures to protect the property. But Judge Simon ruled that the case, the jury to decide issues, including: (1) how the project would have faired had the recipient is not required that the protective measures he has done, (2) how much Damage further protective measures would be prevented, (3) why the receiver is not on the court for permission to carry out the project or for financing to implement comprehensive policies, (4) how often the recipient should have the project and (5) whether the receiver was grossly negligent in performing their duties as the recipient. The case is in the process of a jury on 20 February 2007.
Receiver v. lender rejected. The recipient, in turn, their negligence claim against the creditor, the claim really was, the reimbursement for damages that the recipient might have to pay for the borrower. The recipient showed a finger at the lenders, with the argument that the lender control over the recipients of the measures by the funding (or lack thereof) of the receivership. Simon Judge held to be no legal basis for the receiver's position and dismissed the action. If a negligence-based duties flowed between the parties, they flowed from the receiver to the lender, and not vice versa. In order for the recipient, when considered grossly negligent, can not play all the losses from the lender (even if the recipient may be entitled to a credit / set-off for the money the lender to the borrower.)
It is interesting that the agreed order appointing the receiver requires the receiver to preserve and protect the property of receivership funds, although there is no "receivership funds" to do because the property that no income. The Catch-22 was the property of their downfall. The receiver is responsible for managing the conservation of the property, but on whose dime? Apparently there was an informal agreement whereby the lender to obtain financing. That went okay at the beginning, but the problems and costs later seemed to snowball out of control. I hear that if and when the receiver was negligent, it was partly due to inadequate funding by the lenders. The confidential "substantial" settlement of the lender to the borrower, my speculation.
Teaching. Even if the lender has its dispute with the beneficiary, the lender has already lost if the project failed, and forced the borrower to the lender. There are some lessons for lenders (and beneficiaries):
- Make sure there is a default before a foreclosure case
- Spell checker in the receivership proceedings to exactly how the receivership will be financed
- Explain in the order of the tasks of the receiver, and the borrower or lender be justified
- If the lender agrees to finance the preservation of the property, it should take reasonable steps to do and should not be used without the authorization of a project with a value significantly worse
But perhaps the greatest lesson is - in the cases in the construction loan when the security built - lenders should foreclosure and a receiver only as a last resort.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น