hirkaismyname wrote:hirkaismyname wrote:If a B of a foreclosed property takes it subject to a SR interest, what are the remedies available to him if that SR Interest decides to exercise their right to foreclose on the SR mortgage that remains on the land post foreclosure sale (since the sale eliminated all the JR interests)?
Anyone have an idea?
It seems unfair to have a property be foreclosed upon by a SR interest right after you buy in a foreclosure sale.
-there has to be some equitable remedy for that person.
Also, can someone explain the concept of note following mortgage vs. mortgage following note?
My understanding is that if a mortgage is assumed, the note holder is still personally liable any deficiency not making the creditor whole after a FC sale.
What I don't understand is that if a mortgage interest is released by a bank, why that bank can pursue its claim against the note holder. It is like a deck of cards, where the note is just a placeholder, and once the mortgage amount is satisfied (FMV of property exceed amount owed) then the release of the mortgage dissolves the placeholder (note)?
I agree that you're overthinking this but I figured I'd give you an explanation anyway so you can move on to more productive things.
1. If a property being sold in a foreclosure sale is still subject to a senior mortgage, this will drastically impact its market value. The buyer will likely pay far less for the house than if it were unencumbered. If the senior mortgage then forecloses on the house due to borrower default, the buyer can: (1) pay off the mortgage himself (i.e. with the money saved due to reduced purchase price of home); and (2) subrogate his rights to the mortgagee's, meaning the borrower who defaulted will now personally owe the home buyer (buyer "stands in creditor's shoes).
2. Notes & mortgages: The mortgage (interest securing repayment of the note) always "follows the note" (promise to pay). So anytime you see "note does X" or "mortgage does x," you should assume that thing applies to both the note and the mortgage. In other words, go ahead an abandon any distinction between "note" and "mortgage" from now on and life will be simpler, at least for MBE purposes.
3. Given the above, if B buys A's house and "assumes the mortgage," they are both personally liable for repayment, meaning the bank/mortgagee can go after both of their personal assets beyond the value of the house. However, if the bank/mortgagee releases A (original borrower), the bank/mortgagor can only go after B. This is just basic contracts stuff and works the same as in novations (in contracts) and assignments of the lease (landlord/tenant). The basic premise is that a person has the right to choose who they contract with. I shouldn't get stuck with my only recourse being against some fuck-wad with shitty credit, just because the person with great credit who I vetted and decided to sign a contract with unilaterally decided to delegate his obligation to the fuck-wad.
4. Last thing: I think some of your confusion comes from mixing up "recourse" and "non-recourse" mortgages. In a non-recourse mortgage, the lender can't come after the borrowers personal assets, he can only foreclose on the house (& must eat any loss due to the reduction in home's value). In a recourse mortgage, the borrower is personally liable (so if the foreclosure doesn't result in full payment of the debt, borrower still owes). Recourse is the default, so assume the borrower is personally liable unless the facts state otherwise.
Hope that helps.