[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Anyone who turns a blind eye to see how much Frank and Dodd have actively participated in the housing bubble is in serious denial.[/quote]

Be real specific here please. How did Dodd or Frank participate in the housing bubble any more than the rest of congress or the governmental agencies in charge of oversight?

(and Frank’s claim that the GSE’s were in good shape did not cause the bubble. It was ingnorant and misinformed.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Anyone who turns a blind eye to see how much Frank and Dodd have actively participated in the housing bubble is in serious denial.[/quote]

Be real specific here please. How did Dodd or Frank participate in the housing bubble any more than the rest of congress or the governmental agencies in charge of oversight?

(and Frank’s claim that the GSE’s were in good shape did not cause the bubble. It was ingnorant and misinformed.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Anyone who turns a blind eye to see how much Frank and Dodd have actively participated in the housing bubble is in serious denial.[/quote]

Be real specific here please. How did Dodd or Frank participate in the housing bubble any more than the rest of congress or the governmental agencies in charge of oversight?

(and Frank’s claim that the GSE’s were in good shape did not cause the bubble. It was ingnorant and misinformed.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Anyone who turns a blind eye to see how much Frank and Dodd have actively participated in the housing bubble is in serious denial.[/quote]

Be real specific here please. How did Dodd or Frank participate in the housing bubble any more than the rest of congress or the governmental agencies in charge of oversight?

(and Frank’s claim that the GSE’s were in good shape did not cause the bubble. It was ingnorant and misinformed.)

[SK in CV]

A bit off-topic, since the bill referred to in the original post barely even resembles the bill that actually passed, but if anyone’s interested in reading a good review of the bill that actually passed, prepared in an academic fashion, well cited and footnoted, it can be found at the following link. I call it “academic fashion” because it is not an academic paper. It is, nonetheless, well written.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664684

(Click on the link, then on “one click download” at the top of the page.)

[SK in CV]

A bit off-topic, since the bill referred to in the original post barely even resembles the bill that actually passed, but if anyone’s interested in reading a good review of the bill that actually passed, prepared in an academic fashion, well cited and footnoted, it can be found at the following link. I call it “academic fashion” because it is not an academic paper. It is, nonetheless, well written.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664684

(Click on the link, then on “one click download” at the top of the page.)

[SK in CV]

A bit off-topic, since the bill referred to in the original post barely even resembles the bill that actually passed, but if anyone’s interested in reading a good review of the bill that actually passed, prepared in an academic fashion, well cited and footnoted, it can be found at the following link. I call it “academic fashion” because it is not an academic paper. It is, nonetheless, well written.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664684

(Click on the link, then on “one click download” at the top of the page.)

[SK in CV]

A bit off-topic, since the bill referred to in the original post barely even resembles the bill that actually passed, but if anyone’s interested in reading a good review of the bill that actually passed, prepared in an academic fashion, well cited and footnoted, it can be found at the following link. I call it “academic fashion” because it is not an academic paper. It is, nonetheless, well written.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664684

(Click on the link, then on “one click download” at the top of the page.)

[SK in CV]

A bit off-topic, since the bill referred to in the original post barely even resembles the bill that actually passed, but if anyone’s interested in reading a good review of the bill that actually passed, prepared in an academic fashion, well cited and footnoted, it can be found at the following link. I call it “academic fashion” because it is not an academic paper. It is, nonetheless, well written.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664684

(Click on the link, then on “one click download” at the top of the page.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Kingside]
The one action rule (CCP 726) is not really an anti-deficency statute, it is a statute that requires a lender to proceed with foreclosure before seeking other remedies such a personal liability. The anti-deficency protection you are talking about, no deficiency claim against the borrower after a non-judicial forecloure, is CCP 580d.

But CCP 580d only applies to the borrower, not “true” third party guarantors. This issue has been litigated often in California, but if you want to see a recent application and interesting explanation in a recent California published decision, Talbott v. Hustwit (2008)164 Cal.App.4th 148 is a good one:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85760

And to be clear, a “true guarantor” is a third party, not the borrower itself. I stand by my statement that most commercial real estate loans I see that involve LLCs/corps also involve personal guarantees.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, neither the subject case and nor any of the cases cited by the appelate court which supported the conclusion of the court, were LLP’s or corporations, but rather trusts, or other entities, with a true 3rd party guarantor, who was neither an owner of the secured property or an equity holder, in any manner. The case cited in which the ruling was for the borrower, the borrower was the beneficial owner of the property.

These kinds of guarantees are not typical. Part of the reason, as I pointed out in another thread, that banks are reluctant to lend to trusts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Kingside]
The one action rule (CCP 726) is not really an anti-deficency statute, it is a statute that requires a lender to proceed with foreclosure before seeking other remedies such a personal liability. The anti-deficency protection you are talking about, no deficiency claim against the borrower after a non-judicial forecloure, is CCP 580d.

But CCP 580d only applies to the borrower, not “true” third party guarantors. This issue has been litigated often in California, but if you want to see a recent application and interesting explanation in a recent California published decision, Talbott v. Hustwit (2008)164 Cal.App.4th 148 is a good one:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85760

And to be clear, a “true guarantor” is a third party, not the borrower itself. I stand by my statement that most commercial real estate loans I see that involve LLCs/corps also involve personal guarantees.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, neither the subject case and nor any of the cases cited by the appelate court which supported the conclusion of the court, were LLP’s or corporations, but rather trusts, or other entities, with a true 3rd party guarantor, who was neither an owner of the secured property or an equity holder, in any manner. The case cited in which the ruling was for the borrower, the borrower was the beneficial owner of the property.

These kinds of guarantees are not typical. Part of the reason, as I pointed out in another thread, that banks are reluctant to lend to trusts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Kingside]
The one action rule (CCP 726) is not really an anti-deficency statute, it is a statute that requires a lender to proceed with foreclosure before seeking other remedies such a personal liability. The anti-deficency protection you are talking about, no deficiency claim against the borrower after a non-judicial forecloure, is CCP 580d.

But CCP 580d only applies to the borrower, not “true” third party guarantors. This issue has been litigated often in California, but if you want to see a recent application and interesting explanation in a recent California published decision, Talbott v. Hustwit (2008)164 Cal.App.4th 148 is a good one:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85760

And to be clear, a “true guarantor” is a third party, not the borrower itself. I stand by my statement that most commercial real estate loans I see that involve LLCs/corps also involve personal guarantees.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, neither the subject case and nor any of the cases cited by the appelate court which supported the conclusion of the court, were LLP’s or corporations, but rather trusts, or other entities, with a true 3rd party guarantor, who was neither an owner of the secured property or an equity holder, in any manner. The case cited in which the ruling was for the borrower, the borrower was the beneficial owner of the property.

These kinds of guarantees are not typical. Part of the reason, as I pointed out in another thread, that banks are reluctant to lend to trusts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Kingside]
The one action rule (CCP 726) is not really an anti-deficency statute, it is a statute that requires a lender to proceed with foreclosure before seeking other remedies such a personal liability. The anti-deficency protection you are talking about, no deficiency claim against the borrower after a non-judicial forecloure, is CCP 580d.

But CCP 580d only applies to the borrower, not “true” third party guarantors. This issue has been litigated often in California, but if you want to see a recent application and interesting explanation in a recent California published decision, Talbott v. Hustwit (2008)164 Cal.App.4th 148 is a good one:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85760

And to be clear, a “true guarantor” is a third party, not the borrower itself. I stand by my statement that most commercial real estate loans I see that involve LLCs/corps also involve personal guarantees.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, neither the subject case and nor any of the cases cited by the appelate court which supported the conclusion of the court, were LLP’s or corporations, but rather trusts, or other entities, with a true 3rd party guarantor, who was neither an owner of the secured property or an equity holder, in any manner. The case cited in which the ruling was for the borrower, the borrower was the beneficial owner of the property.

These kinds of guarantees are not typical. Part of the reason, as I pointed out in another thread, that banks are reluctant to lend to trusts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Kingside]
The one action rule (CCP 726) is not really an anti-deficency statute, it is a statute that requires a lender to proceed with foreclosure before seeking other remedies such a personal liability. The anti-deficency protection you are talking about, no deficiency claim against the borrower after a non-judicial forecloure, is CCP 580d.

But CCP 580d only applies to the borrower, not “true” third party guarantors. This issue has been litigated often in California, but if you want to see a recent application and interesting explanation in a recent California published decision, Talbott v. Hustwit (2008)164 Cal.App.4th 148 is a good one:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85760

And to be clear, a “true guarantor” is a third party, not the borrower itself. I stand by my statement that most commercial real estate loans I see that involve LLCs/corps also involve personal guarantees.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, neither the subject case and nor any of the cases cited by the appelate court which supported the conclusion of the court, were LLP’s or corporations, but rather trusts, or other entities, with a true 3rd party guarantor, who was neither an owner of the secured property or an equity holder, in any manner. The case cited in which the ruling was for the borrower, the borrower was the beneficial owner of the property.

These kinds of guarantees are not typical. Part of the reason, as I pointed out in another thread, that banks are reluctant to lend to trusts.

[SK in CV]

???

[quote=Kingside][quote=investor]Putting morality aside, most commercial loans are non-recourse and have been for many years. .[/quote]

?

Most commercial loans, certainly most real estate commercial loans that involve LLCs/Corporate entities, are personally guaranteed by the principal(s). In California, those personal guarantees are very much recourse, even after the lender forecloses non-judicially and credit bids to get a deficiency.

And the lenders do sue on them.[/quote]

“Most” might be a stretch. I’ve rarely seen a true “personal guarantee” on a secured loan. The security is typically the guarantee. Corporations and LLC’s buy (and finance) property all the time and the maker of the note is the entity itself, with either the managing member of the LLC or an appropriate corporate officer signing on behalf of the entity. Less common on smaller properties, but very common on larger properties. I have seen addendums where the signor also signs as an idividual, though that has little bearing in a non-judicial foreclosure.

The only time I have ever seen a claim for a deficiency after a non-judicial foreclosure on commercial property is by a junior lien holder, when the non-judicial foreclosure was by a senior lien holder. I’m unaware of any exemption to California’s one-action rule that applies to commercial property. It might exist. Can you cite that exemption?

[Author]

Posts