Foreclosure: Deeds of Trust

It all starts with the deed of trust. The deed of trust is the primary method of acquiring a lien against real estate in Virginia. With a deed of trust, the owner of the real estate conveys legal title to a trustee, in trust, to secure the noteholder’s indebtedness. A deed of trust establishes a lien on the subject real estate upon execution by the grantor and recordation in the land records of the Circuit Court for the jurisdiction (County or City) in which the property is located. While recording the deed of trust is not essential to the validity of the deed of trust between the parties, an unrecorded deed of trust does not establish a lien on the subject real estate as to other creditors and purchasers of the grantor. An unrecorded deed of trust will not provide the beneficiary of the deed of trust with a priority position against other creditors with recorded liens, even if they are subsequent in time.

Real Estate: Making Owners and General Contractors Personally Liable to Subcontractor, Laborer or Materialman

Virginia Code §43-11 provides a way for owners or general contractors to be made personally liable to subcontractor, laborer or materialman if notice is appropriately given, and if the payer makes payment to the owing party without paying the notifying creditor. Specifically, §43-11 (2) states that:

“…if such subcontractor, or person furnishing labor or material shall at any time after the work is done or material furnished by him and before the expiration of thirty days from the time such building or structure is completed or the work thereon otherwise terminated furnish the owner thereof or his agent and also the general contractor, or the general contractor alone in case he is the only one notified, with a second notice stating a correct account, verified by affidavit, of his actual claim against the general contractor or subcontractor, for work done or materials furnished and of the amount due, then the owner, or the general contractor, if he alone was notified, shall be personally liable to the claimant for the actual amount due to the subcontractor or persons furnishing labor or material by the general contractor or subcontractor, provided the same does not exceed the sum in which the owner is indebted to the general contractor at the time the second notice is given or may thereafter become indebted by virtue of his contract with the general contractor, or in case the general contractor alone is notified the sum in which he is indebted to the subcontractor at the time the second notice is given or may thereafter become indebted by virtue of his contract with the general contractor. But the amount which a person supplying labor or material to a subcontractor can claim shall not exceed the amount for which such subcontractor could file his claim.”

The notices referred to in this code section are commonly referred to in the industry as “42-11 letters”. We have experienced attorneys and staff who can examine title, file mechanic’s liens, and litigate to enforce the same. If you have a need, please call us.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability - False Oath

In the case of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. McFarland, the United States Bankruptcy Court, sitting in Arlington, Virginia, Judge Tice, denied the debtor, a real estate developer, a discharge in bankruptcy because of false testimony.

The creditor had brought a complaint objecting to dischargeability because of allegedly false testimony given by the debtor in examinations under oath after the filing of the debtor's bankruptcy petition.

The Court found as fact that the debtor gave false testimony under oath 1) that he did not receive from a closely held corporation any proceeds of a $440.00 certificate of deposit, when in fact he and his co-shareholder each received $220,000 and 2) that he had no bank accounts in nor made any deposits to offshore banks, when in fact he drew checks in amounts in excess of $300,000 payable to a Cayman Island bank. 

Although the debtor denied that he had any fraudulent intent when he testified, the Court found it "highly implausible" that the debtor forgot about the withdrawal of the $220,000. The debtor also failed to produce any credible evidence refuting the natural presumption that some $300,000 worth of checks admittedly drawn by debtor payable to an offshore bank were transfers of funds to the bank or to an account in the bank.

Accordingly, Judge Tice found the evidence sufficient to warrant denial of the debtor's discharge.

Collections: Construction Case Garnishments

The United States District Court in Alexandria has reviewed a matter important to many supplier and contractor creditors: the garnishment of funds due their debtors from another party. The case was U.S. v. Harkins Builders Inc. In Harkins a material supplier was pursuing a garnishment proceeding against a builder who owed money to the judgment debtor, a drywall subcontractor. The Court ruled that the supplier was not bound by a mandatory arbitration clause in a separate contract between the builder and the drywall sub.

In Harkins a materials company supplied drywall materials to drywall subcontractors. When the drywall subs failed to pay for the materials, the supplier obtained a federal court judgment for $278,520. The supplier then initiated a garnishment proceeding against a builder to attach monies owed by the builder to the drywall sub under a contract between them. As garnishee, the sub confessed assets but argued that the amount it owed to the drywall sub should be reduced by setoffs totaling $50,853 allegedly owed by the sub to the builder under their contract. The garnishee also argued that any dispute about these setoffs must be resolved through arbitration, as provided in the contract between the drywall sub and the builder.

The Court rejected the contention that the resolution of the amount of money owed by the builder to the drywall sub and subjected to garnishment must be accomplished through arbitration. As a judgment creditor of the drywall sub, the supplier was not a party to the contract between the sub and the builder, and its interest was limited to the drywall sub's property interest in the builder's hands. The parties to the drywall builder contract agreed to arbitration as an efficient procedural mechanism for resolving contractual disputes, including disputes over amounts owed. The agreement to arbitrate, however, does not add or subtract value in the calculus for determining the value of the contract right. The Court ruled that since the judgment creditor was afforded court procedures for determining the value, the fact that the property before the court was created by a contract containing an arbitration clause did not require a non-party to the contract to follow the contract's procedural mechanisms for dispute resolution. Accordingly, the federal courts assumed jurisdiction to make the decision.