Insights
Publications

Hidden Liability Traps in Real Estate Loans

10/25/2012 Articles

Borrowers and their constituents generally benefit from certain limitations on personal liability for indebtedness secured by California real property.  California’s one action and anti-deficiency rules require a lender faced with a borrower default to proceed against the real estate first and prohibit a deficiency judgment following a nonjudicial foreclosure or in the case of a purchase money loan.  In addition, various corporate forms generally provide principals and employees with comfort that they will not be personally liable for an entity’s debts.  A recent California appellate court decision, however, delivered a sobering reminder that, despite these protections, even the well-intentioned may face unexpected (and involuntary) liability.

In Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc., 207 Cal. App. 4th 284 (2012), the appellate court considered whether a borrower corporation, its sole owner and certain of its key employees could be held liable to a foreclosing purchase money lender for a deficiency relating to nonpayment of a loan where the borrower demolished a building prior to securing construction financing for the redevelopment.  The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to all claims.  The appellate court reversed, holding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the borrower, as well as its representatives, could be held liable to its purchase money lender for “bad faith” waste. 

The court relied, in part, on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cornelison v. Kornbluth¸15 Cal.3d 590 (1975), holding that the anti-deficiency rules (i.e., California statutory rules barring a deficiency judgment following a nonjudicial foreclosure or in the case of a purchase money loan) would not bar recovery against the borrower where the borrower has committed “bad faith” waste as opposed to waste resulting from “the depressed condition of the general real estate market.”  In ruling that the borrowers (and its owners and representatives) could be liable, the Fait court adopted a more expansive interpretation of “bad faith” waste, stating that “‘bad faith’ waste . . . is any waste that is not the result of economic pressures of a market depression” and noting that it did not require a showing of reckless, intentional or malicious conduct.  The court found that the developer’s decision to demolish the building before it had the financial means to complete development or repay the promissory note was not comparable to a mere decline in property value due to market forces. 

Notably, the Fait court also reversed summary judgment with respect to the claims against the corporation’s sole owner and its officers responsible for the demolition—even though they neither co-signed nor guaranteed the loan – holding that claims for the torts of intentional impairment of security and negligent impairment of security could proceed because the defendants failed to meet the heightened evidentiary burden for summary judgment.  While the court did not elaborate on what constitutes intentional or negligent impairment of security, it clarified that “intent to harm” is not a required element of the claim of intentional impairment of security, and noted that the developer and its employees could be liable even if they demolished the building based on a good faith belief that the property could be developed.  Left unanswered was a more troubling question:  exactly what is the scope of duty owed by real estate professionals to secured lenders?

The Fait case also may affect the interpretation and negotiation of “non-recourse” guaranties.  Many commercial loan transactions contain provisions that make the loan generally non-recourse as to the borrower or its guarantors, subject to certain “carve-outs.”  One of the most common carve-outs is for waste.  The Fait court’s broad standard of bad faith waste means that, where a guaranty lists waste as a potential source of guarantor liability, the lender is not required to show malicious intent, and any waste that is not due strictly to a general downturn in market conditions may trigger liability.  Attempts by guarantors to negotiate for a “bad faith” qualifier to the waste exception may not result in increased protection. 

The Fait case serves as an important reminder to real estate professionals that the risk of personal liability to lenders for property damage should not be taken lightly.  Borrowers can minimize the risk of personal liability for themselves and their constituents by taking reasonable steps to avoid waste (including by ensuring that revenues generated by the property are applied to operating expenses before distributions are made to investors), and not undertaking major projects without the lender’s consent, especially where there are no assurances of adequate funding to finish the job. 

If you have questions about potential liability arising from the operation, development or ownership of real property, please contact the article authors Gary Kaplan at [email protected] / 415.954.4940 and Brett Greenberg at [email protected] / 415.954.4425 or a Farella Braun + Martel LLP attorney in the real estate, insolvency or business transactions practice groups.

Firm Highlights

Publication

A Summary of New Laws Coming for California Employers in 2024

In 2023, California has adopted several new employment laws either introducing new employee protections or codifying existing practices into state law. With these changes, employers will need to examine and adjust some of their...

Read More
News

Brookfield Forecloses on 2,150-Unit Veritas Portfolio With Uncontested $464M Bid

Restructuring, insolvency, and creditors rights partner Gary Kaplan provided expert commentary in The Real Deal  article, "Brookfield forecloses on 2,150-unit Veritas portfolio with uncontested $464M bid." Read the full article  here  (subscription may be...

Read More
Publication

AB 1633: The Housing Accountability Act

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local agencies to approve housing projects that meet objective zoning, general plan, subdivision, and design standards unless there is a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety...

Read More
News

This Real Estate Company Dumped Its Downtown San Francisco Mall. Now It’s Gobbling Up Apartments

Restructuring, insolvency, and creditors rights partner Gary Kaplan provided expert commentary in The  San Francisco Standard  article, "This Real Estate Company Dumped Its Downtown San Francisco Mall. Now It’s Gobbling Up Apartments." Read the full...

Read More
Publication

Real Estate Leasing Tips for Nonprofits

Welcome to  EO Radio Show – Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . I'm Cynthia Rowland, and today, we are lucky to have Farella real estate partner Quinn Arntsen with us to talk about leasing issues for...

Read More
News

Ashley Breakfield Elected 2024 President of CREW SF

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that real estate and land use partner Ashley E. Breakfield has been elected president of the Commercial Real Estate Women of San Francisco (CREW SF) Board...

Read More
Publication

Nonprofit Tenants and Lease Agreements: Best Practices and Pitfalls to Avoid

Welcome to  EO Radio Show – Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . I'm Cynthia Rowland, and today, we are again lucky to have Farella real estate partner Quinn Arntsen with us to talk about leasing...

Read More
News

Affordable Housing Outlook: What Challenges Will 2024 Pose?

Real estate partner CJ Higley provided expert commentary in the Multi-Housing News article "Affordable Housing Outlook: What Challenges Will 2024 Pose?" The article is available here .

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More
Publication

Regulatory Changes Underway To Address Dwindling California Property Insurance Market

We keep hearing about how difficult it is for our clients to get property insurance these days, both for homes and businesses in Northern California’s wildfire-prone areas. Which, of course, is most of Northern...

Read More