Home Foreclosure Defenses

Each state has their own laws regarding foreclosure and home lending. And, many states offers various solutions and government sponsored or mandated foreclosure relief programs that you may not be aware of. Foreclosure Lawyers finds the right attorney in your state and major metropolitan region that is familiar with the laws and relief programs that may qualify for. Additionally, the attorney can assist in negotiations between you and your lender to potentially end the foreclosure process entirely.

Contesting a foreclosure

Because the right of redemption is an equitable right, foreclosure is an action in equity. To keep the right of redemption, the debtor may be able to petition the court for an injunction. If repossession is imminent the debtor must seek a temporary restraining order. However, the debtor may have to post a bond in the amount of the debt. This protects the creditor if the attempt to stop foreclosure is simply an attempt to escape the debt.

A debtor may also challenge the validity of the debt in a claim against the bank to stop the foreclosure and sue for damages. In a foreclosure proceeding, the lender also bears the burden of proving they have standing to foreclose.

Several U.S. states, including California, Georgia, and Texas impose a “tender” condition precedent upon borrowers seeking to challenge a wrongful foreclosure, which is rooted in the maxim of equity that “he who seeks equity must first do equity,” as well as the common law rule that the party seeking rescission of a contract must first return all benefits received under the contract.

In other words, to challenge an allegedly wrongful foreclosure, the borrower must make legal tender of the entire remaining balance of the debt prior to the foreclosure sale. California has one of the strictest forms of this rule, in that the funds must be received by the lender before the sale. One tender attempt was held inadequate when the check arrived via FedEx on a Monday, three days after the foreclosure sale had already occurred on Friday.

At least one textbook has attacked the paradox inherent in the tender rule—namely, if the borrower actually had enough cash to promptly pay the entire balance, they would have already paid it off and the lender would not be trying to foreclose upon them in the first place[15]—but it continues to be the law in the aforementioned states.

Occasionally, borrowers have raised enough cash at the last minute (usually through desperate fire sales of other unencumbered assets) to offer good tender and have thereby avoided foreclosure or at least preserved their rights to challenge the foreclosure process. Courts have been unsympathetic to attempts by such borrowers to recover fire sale losses from foreclosing lenders.[16]
One noteworthy but legally meaningless court case questions the legality of the foreclosure practice is sometimes cited as proof of various claims regarding lending. In the case First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly Jerome Daly claimed that the bank didn’t offer a legal form of consideration because the money loaned to him was created upon signing of the loan contract. The myth reports that Daly won, and the result was that he didn’t have to repay the loan, and the bank couldn’t repossess his property. In fact, the “ruling” (widely referred to as the “Credit River Decision”) was ruled a nullity by the courts.

In a recent New York case, the Court rejected a lender’s attempt to foreclose on summary judgment because the lender failed to submit proper affidavits and papers in support of its foreclosure action and also, the papers and affidavits that were submitted were not prepared in the ordinary course of business.

Defenses

In some states, particularly those where only judicial foreclosure is available, the constitutional issue of due process has affected the ability of some lenders to foreclose. In Ohio, the federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio has dismissed numerous foreclosure actions by lenders because of the inability of the alleged lender to prove that they are the real party in interest. In June 2008, a Colorado district court judge also dismissed a foreclosure action because of failure of the alleged lender to prove they were the real party in interest.

In contrast, in six federal judicial circuits and the majority of nonjudicial foreclosure states (like California), due process has already been judicially determined to be a frivolous defense.[6] The entire point of nonjudicial foreclosure is that there is no state actor (i.e., a court) involved. The constitutional right of due process protects people only from violations of their civil rights by state actors, not private actors. A further rationale is that under the principle of freedom of contract, if debtors wish to enjoy the additional protection of the formalities of judicial foreclosure, it is their burden to find a lender willing to provide a loan secured by a traditional conventional mortgage instead of a deed of trust with a power of sale. The difficulty in finding such a lender in nonjudicial foreclosure states is not the state’s problem. Courts have also rejected as frivolous the argument that the mere legislative act of authorizing the nonjudicial foreclosure process thereby transforms the process itself into state action.

In turn, since there is no right to due process in nonjudicial foreclosure, it has been held that it is irrelevant whether the borrower had actual notice of the foreclosure, as long as the foreclosure trustee performed the tasks prescribed by statute in an attempt to give notice.

Equitable foreclosure

“Strict foreclosure” is an equitable right available in some states. The strict foreclosure period arises after the foreclosure sale has taken place and is available to the foreclosure sale purchaser. The foreclosure sale purchaser must petition a court for a decree that cuts off any junior lien holder’s rights to redeem the senior debt. If the junior lien holder fails to object within the judicially established time frame, his lien is canceled and the purchaser’s title is cleared. This effect is the same as the strict foreclosure that occurred at common law in England’s courts of equity as a response to the development of the equity of redemption.