Collection: No Debt Cure from Extra Payments

     In the case of W. Harold Tulley I LLC v. North Richmond Investments Inc., the City of Richmond Circuit Court addressed a case involving an alleged cure of a default by payments made after default.

     The Court ruled in Tulley that Plaintiff lender is entitled to a deficiency judgment after foreclosure on real estate that secured a commercial loan. The Court rejected Defendant guarantors’ contention that their additional payments after default cured the default, as such was not provided for under the parties’ contract.
     Defendants asserted that the Third-Party Defendant trustees and Plaintiff breached their obligations and duties because they knew or should have known Defendants were not in default. Defendants claimed that the trustees violated their duties under the loan documents, failed to act impartially, failed to acquire the best price upon the sale, sold the property at an inadequate sale price, and as they were never in default, should not have conducted the sale. Defendants contended that the trustees conducted the sale on a sham bid, knowing that Defendants were not in default.
     The Court noted that neither the deed of trust and guaranty agreement nor the applicable statute, Virginia Code Section 55-59, lists any of the duties Defendants would have imposed on the trustees in foreclosure sales.
     The Court found that both the deed of trust and the guaranty agreement describe default as failure to pay the agreed upon amounts at the agreed upon time on a timely basis. The guarantor stated that upon his tender of the two advance interest payments, there was no agreement regarding how the payments were to be applied, and that he understood they were not required under the financing and deed of trust documents. The Court ruled that Defendants were held properly in default, the amounts due accelerated triggering foreclosure.

Foreclosure: Foreclosure Sale Accounting

     The Code of Virginia requires that the trustee’s accounting be filed with the appropriate commissioner of accounts “within six months after the date of a sale.” The Manual for Commissioners of Accounts states that “although the Commissioner does not have specific statutory authority to extend the six month filing date, some courts allow the Commissioner to extend the deadline for good cause shown in advance of the filing date.”

Real Estate: The Virginia Property Owners' Association Act - General Provisions

     In a previous blog I began a review of the Virginia Property Owners’ Act. Under the Act, sellers are required to disclose in their sales contract that the property is located within a development subject to the Act. The Act also requires the seller to retrieve the Disclosure Packet in the Act and provide it to the purchaser. The Disclosure Packet includes the following information: association documents, the name of the association, state of incorporation, register agent’s name and address, any other entity/facility to which the owner may owe fees or charges, budget or summary, income/expenses statement or balance sheet for last fiscal year, statement of balance due of outstanding loans, nature/status of pending lawsuits, unpaid judgments (with material impact on association or members or relating to lot being purchased), insurance coverage provided for lot owners including fidelity bond maintained by association, and much more.

     The purchaser may cancel the contract within three days if delivered by hand or email, or six days if sent by mail, after receiving the Disclosure Packet or being notified that it is “not available” (meaning: a current annual report has not been filed by the Association with either the SCC or the CICB; or the seller has requested in writing that the packet be provided and it is not received within 14 days; or the association has provided written notice that the Disclosure Packet is not available). Additionally, if the Disclosure Packet is not delivered or the association does not indicate that it is not available, the purchaser may cancel the sale any time prior to closing. If the purchaser received the Disclosure Packet, the owner also has the right to request an update. However, the rights to receive and cancel the contract are waived conclusively if not exercised before settlement.
     Failure to provide a Disclosure Packet after a written request for it has been made results in a waiver of any claim to delinquent assessments or violations of association documents up to that point, and the association will be liable to the seller for actual damages sustained up to $1,000 if the association is managed by a CIC Manager or up to $500 if it is self-managed.
     In upcoming blogs, I will discuss the provisions of the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act that provide a memorandum of lien and foreclosure in the event of an owner’s default.

Bankruptcy: IRA Exemption in Chapter 7

     The United States Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, in the case of In Re Hasse, ruled that a federal employee who participated in the federal thrift savings plan may claim an unlimited exemption in an individual retirement account, despite the objection of the Chapter 7 trustee.

     The IRA, valued at $100,000, was claimed exempt under Virginia Code §34-34. Virtually all the debtor’s other assets were either encumbered by liens or were exempt, with the result that the IRA was the only asset potentially available for the payment of creditor claims. At issue in this case was the Virginia General Assembly’s decision to amend Virginia Code §34-34 in 1999 by adding subsection H, which provided that an individual who claimed an exemption under federal law for any retirement plan established pursuant to §§ 401, 403(a), 403(b), 409 or 457 of the Internet Revenue Code (“IRC”) shall not be entitled to claim the exemption under this subsection for a retirement plan established pursuant to §408 or §408 A of the IRC. The thrust of the amendment was to give a debtor who had no other tax-qualified retirement plan the right to an unlimited IRA exemption but to deny the unlimited exemption to a person who was covered by such a plan. By giving a person who was not covered by an ERISA-qualified plan the right to an unlimited IRA exemption, such a person would be put on an equal footing with an employee who was a participant in an ERISA-qualified plan.
     The Bankruptcy Court found that a federal thrift savings plan account, while it is similar to, and for tax purposes is treated exactly like a private employer 401(k) plan - was nevertheless not subject to all the regulations governing §401(k) plans. The question was therefore whether, for the purpose of applying §34-34(H), a thrift savings plan account should be treated as a “retirement plan established pursuant to” §401 of the IRC. If so, the debtor was not entitled to a further exemption for his IRA; otherwise, he could exempt it in full.  
     The trustee took the position that Congress, by treating the thrift savings plan for tax purposes in the same fashion as 401(k) plans, sufficiently equated the two for the purposes of applying Virginia Code §34-34(H). Debtor took strenuous exception to that argument and points out that 5 U.S.C. §8440 only governed the tax treatment of thrift savings plan contributions and distributions. The Bankruptcy Court noted that not only did the enabling statute mandate compliance with the “requirements” of §401(k), it expressly exempted it from compliance with two of those requirements.
     The Bankruptcy Court found that the trustee’s argument ignored the words chosen by the Virginia General Assembly. Those words were very precise. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that a debtor was entitled to an unlimited exemption in an IRA unless the debtor was a participant in, or beneficiary of, a plan that is “intended to satisfy the requirements of” and is “established pursuant to” certain specific sections of the IRC. Although the thrift savings plan operates like, and enjoys the tax benefits of, a 401(k) plan, it was not a 401(k) plan and was not subject to all the “requirements” of a 401(k) plan. The Bankruptcy Court stated that for whatever reason, the General Assembly chose not to define “retirement plan” in such a way as to embrace, not only plans “established” under the enumerated sections of the IRC, but also plans treated for tax purposes like such plans.
     Prior the enactment of Virginia Code §34-34(H), only a limited exemption was available in Virginia for IRAs. The Bankruptcy Court found that the statute plainly intended to expand that exemption. The ability of people to provide adequately for their old age is obviously a matter of great public importance, and it is certainly reasonable that the General Assembly would want, as a matter of sound public policy, to protect savings set aside for that purpose.
     Accordingly, the trustee’s objection was overruled and the debtor’s exemption was allowed.