Financial institutions obtaining title to property in Colorado through public trustee foreclosures are sometimes surprised to learn that the foreclosure did not remove all the title problems that would be objectionable to a prospective buyer when the institution attempts to resell the property.
A foreclosure, among other things, is a means to extinguish liens and encumbrances junior to the foreclosed mortgage. Under Colorado’s “race notice” rule after recorded or unrecorded liens are ordinarily junior to the institution’s mortgage and will be extinguished in a foreclosure.  Unfortunately, this rule is fraught with exceptions.  Statutes, case law, and contract may all affect the relative seniorities of recorded, unrecorded, and after-recorded liens.
Anyone concerned with the value and marketability of foreclosed property must look beyond the typical title report to understand what will and will not survive the foreclosure.  By learning about and addressing any surviving liens or encumbrances, the institution can better prepare the property for resale.

  • Examples of liens or encumbrances that may survive a public trustee foreclosure include the following:
    • If a lender had actual notice of an unrecorded lien at loan origination, the unrecorded lien may be deemed senior to the lender’s mortgage.
    • Homeowners’ associations, to a limited extent, enjoy a senior lien for an amount equal to the regular common expense assessments due during the six months immediately prior to the foreclosure.  Amounts above this “super-priority” lien will be extinguished.  Also, if the lender is foreclosing on a second mortgage, the entire amount due the association is a prior lien.  
    • Architects, builders, and other workers may be entitled to a so-called “mechanics lien,” which may in some instances enjoy a statutory seniority.  In particular, many lenders are not aware of Colorado’s doctrine of “relation back,” under which the priority of a mechanics lien may date back the commencement of first work by the first party entitled to record a mechanics lien (usually a surveyor, engineer, or architect). 
    • Some federal, state, or municipal liens (recorded or not) may enjoy a statutory seniority.  For example, property taxes are deemed senior to a mortgage. 
    • After recorded liens to which the foreclosing lender voluntarily subordinated its interests will survive. 
    • A residential lease may be deemed to be a senior lien under certain consumer protection laws now in effect.  Under the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act,” Federal Law mandates that a residential lease, if it meets certain requirements, may survive a foreclosure, and any lender may find it difficult to sell or even show this property until the lease expires.  This law sunsets in 2013.
    • A mortgage will oftentimes be contractually subordinated to commercial leases (though these agreements will most likely be of record). 
    • Zoning ordinances and building regulations typically survive a foreclosure, even if they arising after the mortgage.
    • Sometimes a foreclosing lender will intentionally (or accidentally) omit otherwise junior lien holders from a foreclosure; the liens of such omitted parties may survive.

The above list is non-exhaustive, and subtle nuances apply to each item. In many foreclosures, legal counsel can be an invaluable resource to help identify and in some cases assist in the removal of these problem liens and encumbrances.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Counties often require proof of an adequate water supply as a condition of land use approval.  Where a development will not be served by a central water provider such as a city or metro district, counties may refer a proposed water supply plan to the State Engineer for review.  Previously, such State Engineer review was limited to subdivision applications.  In 2011, the State Engineer enacted new policies for the review of water supplies which now apply to land divisions even when they are exempt from the county subdivision process.

Under Colorado law, a “35-acre exempt well permit” may be obtained for a parcel of land that is 35 acres or larger, and the well can be used to serve up to three houses plus one acre of irrigated land, fire protection, and the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock.  Until recently, if such a permit was already in place, counties permitted the landowner to divide the land and rely on the exempt well to serve the same number of houses and irrigated area on separate parcels.  That has now changed.

 In 2011, the State Engineer issued a new policy and memorandum to all county land use planning directors recommending that all proposed divisions of land (including subdivision exemptions) with existing wells or well permits be forwarded to the State Engineer for review.  If the proposed land division will result in a well being located on a new parcel of land that is smaller than the acreage required for issuance of the original permit, then the State Engineer will recommend the county to require a new permit.

 This policy eliminates the possibility of sharing an existing 35-acre exempt well between newly created, smaller parcels.  Instead, each new parcel – including the parcel on which the existing well is located – will have to obtain a new well permit or water supply consistent with the new parcel size (if less than 35 acres).  The only exempt well that may be used for residential purposes on a parcel of land that is less than 35 acres is for in-house use only inside one single-family dwelling.  Therefore, any irrigation or other outside water use would have to be supplied from another source.

 Each county in Colorado will need to decide whether to comply with this recommendation, so the practical implications of the new policy may depend on where a subject property is located.  Both Eagle County and Garfield County are following the recommendation.

 Property owners considering a division of land that is not served by a central water service provider should consult with an experienced water attorney before pursuing an application with their county land use planning department.  For more information about our water law practice, please visit www.garfieldhecht.com.

 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Dollar volume of Bank of America Private Banking Loans Increase for 2011

January 16, 2012

For the calendar year 2011 the Garfield &Hecht, P.C. law firm assisted Bank of America Private Banking with closing documentation for loans aggregated over $145M.  This represents an increase of approximately 40% over 2010.  The law firm assists Bank of America Private Banking with loan closing documentation on the western slope of Colorado including Aspen, [...]

Read the full article →

Jury Returns Verdict for Garfield & Hecht Commercial Real Estate Clients

November 16, 2011

On October 31, 2011, Garfield & Hecht, P.C. attorneys David H. McConaughy and Eric D. Musselman obtained a favorable jury verdict in Garfield County District Court in a commercial real estate case (Parachute Development Corporation, et al. vs. Judith Day, Case No. 2008-cv-322).  The case involved a vacant commercial subdivision in Parachute, Colorado, known as [...]

Read the full article →

Garfield & Hecht Presents at Aspen Young Professionals Event

August 10, 2011

On June 6, 2011, Garfield & Hecht attorneys David McConaughy and Dan Reynolds presented a seminar in association with the Aspen Young Professionals Association on the law of ECommerce and Doing Business in Cyberspace. The seminar was well-attended and included a lively discussion of current issues regarding the interplay of law and technology. The seminar [...]

Read the full article →

Court Orders Foreclosure of Dancing Bear May Proceed

August 9, 2011

PRESS RELEASE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF WESTLB AG IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE DANCING BEAR DEVELOPMENT IN ASPEN — FORECLOSURE OF DANCING BEAR MAY PROCEED On May 25, 2011, the Honorable Michael E. Romero, a federal judge with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, entered a 23-page written Opinion granting [...]

Read the full article →

GARFIELD & HECHT ANNOUNCES RIFLE OFFICE

July 20, 2011

GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Attorneys at Law Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com We are proud to announce the opening of our new office in Rifle, Colorado, formally Carter & Sands, P.C. at: Downtown Professional Building 450 West Avenue, Ste 204 P.O. Box 192 Rifle, CO 81650 Telephone: (970) 625 – 1075 Facsimile: (970) 625 – 3989 Garfield [...]

Read the full article →

GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PRACTICE

July 20, 2011

2009 is a revaluation year for real property in Colorado, meaning everyone who owns property in Colorado will be receiving a notice of valuation from their county assessor.  In many cases the property value reflected on the notice will show a dramatic increase from the current assessed value of the property, and may be greater [...]

Read the full article →

Now Accepting Credit Cards

July 20, 2011

As a convenience to our clients we are now accepting credit cards as a form of payment. Clients desiring to make payments via credit card have a choice. You may call our accounting department at 970-927-1946 and provide the necessary credit card information. We are accepting Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express. Credit card information [...]

Read the full article →

Developer of Base Village found Liable again under ILSA

March 30, 2011

On March 30, 2011, Judge Denise K. Lynch, Pitkin County District Court, Colorado, applied the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (“ILSA”) in favor of Garfield & Hecht, P.C.’s (“G&H, P.C.”) purchaser clients.  The Court held that the developer (a Related Companies (NYC) development entity) of the massive and stalled Base Village Project in Snowmass [...]

Read the full article →
Copyright © 2011, Garfield & Hecht, P.C.. All rights reserved.
WEBMAIL