California Bankruptcy Court Holds Debtor Precluded from Contesting Dischargeability of State Court Fraud Judgment Banner Image

California Bankruptcy Court Holds Debtor Precluded from Contesting Dischargeability of State Court Fraud Judgment

California Bankruptcy Court Holds Debtor Precluded from Contesting Dischargeability of State Court Fraud Judgment

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California recently held that a debtor was precluded from contesting the dischargeability of a judgment obtained by a title insurer for an underlying fraud claim. See Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Park (In re Park), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3539 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021).  In 2013, the title company’s predecessor-in-interest obtained a default judgment in the amount of $278,052.60 against the debtor.  The judgment arose from a 2011 real estate investment in which the debtor arranged for the predecessor to give a loan in exchange for a deed of trust on a property.  When the owners of the property filed an action claiming their signatures were forged, the predecessor filed cross-claims against the debtor for fraud, among other claims.  The debtor defaulted and the predecessor obtained the default judgment.  In 2020, the debtor filed a bankruptcy petition, and the title company filed a dischargeability action under Sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Under Section 523(a)(2), “[a] discharge under section 727 . . . of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider's financial condition.”  Likewise, Section 523(a)(6) “excepts from discharge debts arising from a debtor’s ‘willful and malicious’ injury to another person or to the property of another.”  The title company then moved for summary judgment.

The Court granted the motion, holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars the debtor from contesting the dischargeability of the debt here.  First, the Court found that the state court’s default judgment for fraud addressed identical claims to those under Sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(6).  Second, it held that the debtor was served in that action and therefore had “actual knowledge of the existence of the litigation,” regardless of whether he answered or appeared.  The Court also found that the issues were necessarily decided and were final and on the merits for the aforementioned reasons, which meets the third and fourth elements of issue preclusion.  Finally, there was no dispute that the party against whom preclusion was sought here (the debtor) is the same as the party in the state court action.  Accordingly, the Court granted the title company’s summary judgment motion.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com, Desiree McDonald at dmcdonald@riker.com, or Kevin Hakansson at khakansson@riker.com.

New Jersey Legislative Update Part I

For more information about this blog post, please contact Khaled J. KleleRyan M. MageeConnor Breza, or Labinot Alexander Berlajolli.

This time of year, numerous bills get passed and approved by the New Jersey Legislative Branch and Governor. This year is no different. This update focuses on several bills impacting healthcare that have recently become law. We will issue another update that addresses other bills that have also become law.

Bill A4139 - Establishes requirements for copies of medical and billing records to be provided without charge to Social Security Disability benefits applicants and recipients.

This bill amends N.J.S.A. 26:2H-5n and N.J.S.A. 45:9-22.27 to restrict certain hospitals and healthcare providers licensed by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners from charging fees to Social Security Disability benefit applicants and recipients for requested medical records. The restriction on charging fees applies to both the patient whose medical records are being requested as well as attorneys representing the patient. The bill further requires that medical and billing records be delivered in the manner specified by the requestor, which includes, but is not limited to, mailing the record to any address or faxing the record to any number specified by the requestor, including the requestor’s attorney.

Bill S845 - Requires healthcare professional licensing boards to utilize National Practitioner Data Bank.

The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports maintained by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which contains information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare professionals to prevent healthcare professionals from moving from state to state without discovery of prior bad acts.

The specific function of this bill is to require professional and occupational licensing boards within the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety that regulate the practice of a healthcare professional to (1) not issue an initial license or other authorization to practice a healthcare profession to any applicant unless the board first determines that no information exists on file in the National Practitioner Data Bank which may disqualify the applicant; and (2) utilize the continuous query function of the National Practitioner Data Bank for each person issued a license or authorization to practice a healthcare profession. The bill further grants authority to such professional and occupational licensing boards to refuse or revoke licensure or renewal to licensees in the event that there is cause to do so under the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Bill S3632 – Expands exemption from restrictions on healthcare practitioner referrals.

This bill amends N.J.S.A. 45:9-22.5 to expand the exemption from restrictions on healthcare practitioner referrals to include certain arrangements and programs provided for under federal law. Specifically, under this bill, such restrictions on patient referrals no longer apply to value-based arrangements made in accordance with 42 C.F.R. 411.357(aa), payment models authorized under a Medicare shared savings program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395jjj, or demonstrations operated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1315a. The bill further expands on the exemption applicable to referrals made by practitioners to a facility in which the practitioner has significant beneficial interest. In that regard, the bill requires that the practitioner make the referral in accordance with professional standards applicable to the healthcare service at issue.

Bill A5353 - Provides for certification of temporary nurse aides.

This bill provides a path for temporary nurse aides to become certified following the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. In recognition of the accelerated training and competency demonstrated by temporary nurse aides during the pandemic, the legislature saw fit to provide a streamlined path to certification for such nurse aides.

Under this bill, nurse aides who successfully completed a training program and competency assessment authorized under a CMS waiver declared in response to COVID-19 and subsequently worked a minimum of 80 hours under the supervision of a licensed professional nurse during the public health emergency are permitted to be issued a nurse aide certification.

It is important to note that temporary nurse aides who have not been certified as nurse aides under this bill are permitted to work as temporary nurse aides for no more than 90 days following the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Bill S4139 - Extends temporary emergency licensure of certain healthcare professionals.

This bill extends the temporary emergency licensure of certain recently graduated and out-of-state healthcare professionals in New Jersey. Pursuant to the bill, the emergency licensure is extended to June 30, 2022, replacing the previous expiration, which allowed the licensure to continue for 60 days following the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Under this bill, any nurse, physician assistant, respiratory care therapist, pharmacist, or alcohol and drug counselor who holds a valid temporary emergency graduate license on the effective date of the bill shall not be required to apply for a license to continue practicing under the temporary emergency graduate license through June 30, 2022.

Similarly, certain “Group 2 healthcare professionals” are permitted to continue practicing under the temporary emergency reciprocal license through June 30, 2022, including, but not limited to, licensed social workers, doctors of osteopathy, medical doctors, various types of licensed mental health professionals, advanced practice nurses, and registered professional nurses.

Bill A6072 - Increases number of hospitals eligible for highest amount of charity care subsidy payment; appropriates $30 million.

This bill modifies the thresholds by which hospitals may be entitled to charity care subsidy payments. The bill increases by one the threshold amount of hospitals set for qualifying for the maximum charity care subsidy payment of 96% of each hospital’s hospital-specific reimbursed documented charity care. It likewise increases by one the 94% and lower thresholds as well.

Additionally, the bill appropriates $30 million from the General Fund to the healthcare Subsidy Fund for fiscal year 2022 for the Department of Health to provide charity care payment equal to 96% of the hospital’s hospital-specific reimbursed documented charity care.

Bill A4435 - Requires Division of Family and Community Partnerships of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to give priority to certain school districts with student mental health counseling centers in awarding grants under School Based Youth Services Program.

This bill supplements N.J.S.A. 30:5B to require the Office of School-Linked Services within DCF to give priority to applicant school districts that operate or host, or demonstrate a plan to operate or host, a center or other entity that focuses on providing individual, family, and group clinical mental health counseling services to students when awarding grants under the School Based Youth Services Program. The bill places certain requirements and factors for qualification under the School Based Youth Services Program including need and capability of the school district.

Limited Funding Available for NJ Brownfields – NJEDA Brownfields Impact Fund

The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (“NJEDA”) announced that the new Brownfields Impact Fund opened for applications on January 20, 2022.  This pilot program provides grant funding and low-interest loans to nonprofit and public sector organizations, as well as low-interest loans to for-profit organizations to execute cleanup activities of underused, contaminated properties known as “brownfield sites” throughout the state. Specifically, the Brownfields Impact Fund dedicates $800,000 to address funding gaps to make the remediation phase of brownfield remediation projects financially viable. Yet, given the limited amount of funds available, those interested in obtaining funds should act quickly to take advantage of the new program.

This article provides an overview of the Brownfields Impact Fund and highlights the need to expeditiously apply for funding.

Loan and Grant Overview

As noted above, the Brownfield Impact Fund provides low-interest loans and/or grants for eligible brownfield cleanups. While the pilot program funding only consists of $800,000, the amount of the individual loans and/or grants that can be obtained are limited:  loans have a minimum of $50,000 and a maximum of $350,000, while grants have a minimum of $25,000, and a maximum of $350,000.

Activities that can be paid for with loan and/or grant monies include but are not limited to preparation of Remedial Action Workplans, remediation of lead based paint and asbestos, demolition of buildings in certain instances, construction of engineering controls (e.g., foundations and roadways), and other actions necessary to clean up the release or mitigate the threatened release of hazardous substances. Assessment or investigation are not eligible activities unless these are required as a component of the remedial action. A more detailed list of eligible and ineligible activities is outlined in the Brownfield Impact Fund brochure and can be found here.

The Application Fee is $1,000. For grant applications, the NJEDA will waive the application fee upon demonstration by the applicant that the fee imposes an undue financial hardship.  For loans, there is a commitment fee of 0.875% of the loan amount and a closing fee of 0.875% of the loan amount.

Community Collaborative Initiative Communities. The Community Collaborative Initiative (“CCI”) is a program operated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection that promotes quality of life in New Jersey's distressed communities. For the first three months (90 calendar days), eligibility for funding from the Brownfield Impact Fund is limited to projects within the twelve CCI Communities, specifically: Bayonne, Bridgeton, Camden, Jersey City, Millville, Newark, Paterson, Paulsboro, Perth Amboy, Salem, Trenton, and Vineland. According to the NJEDA, these communities are home to New Jersey’s most underserved populations and have been disproportionately burdened by contaminated sites.

After the 90-day period, the NJEDA will accept applications from projects located outside of the twelve CCI communities, subject to the availability of funding.

General Grant and Loan Requirements. Grant funding is available only to nonprofit organizations and government entities, but loans are available to public and private organizations, including developers.

For nonprofit organizations and government entities applying for grant funding, the entity must own the brownfield property at the time of the application and retain ownership of the property for the term of the grant. Meanwhile, all entities applying for loan funding must be able to demonstrate site control or a path to site control at time of the application.

All applications for loans or grants must include:
- A plan for the redevelopment of the property - A complete pre-screening form
- A letter of support from the mayor or municipality in which the project is located - A complete NJDEA legal questionnaire
- A valid New Jersey Tax Clearance Certificate from the N.J. Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation.

Good Standing Required. All applicants must be in good standing with both the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. If a compliance issue exists, the eligible entity may correct this by agreement with the respective department. Loans or grants cannot be provided to entities who caused or contributed to the contamination of the property.

Prevailing Wage Requirement. The New Jersey Prevailing Wage and Davis Bacon Act applies to the work funded by this program, including all contracts awarded from funds provided by this program. Each worker employed to perform the remediation funded by this program is required to be paid the prevailing wage rate for their craft or trade. Some organizations have argued that the prevailing wage requirement reduces the benefit of this funding opportunity, as it will increase overall costs for the project.

Conclusion

This Brownfields Impact Fund is set to provide $800,000 in funding to private developers, public sector and nonprofit entities. With the limited funding and relatively high minimums for grants and loans, it is important for interested parties to submit applications early, as the grants and loans will be awarded on a first come, first served basis upon receipt of a completed application.

For more information, please contact the author Holli Packer at HPacker@riker.com or any attorney in our Environmental Practice Group.

Mike O’Donnell and Bethany Abele Featured in NJLJ Article re Wire Fraud

The New Jersey Law Journal interviewed Co-Managing Partner Michael R. O’Donnell and Partner Bethany A. Abele extensively for its January 19, 2022 article “Lawyers, Title Insurance Companies Targeted in ‘One of the Hottest Real Estate Scams.’”  The article addresses the growing fraud scheme in which hackers intercept money sent by wire transfer during closing transactions.

Mike and Bethany discuss why real estate transactions have become such a target of these schemes, and how law firms and settlement agents can protect against it.  “It’s one of the hottest real estate scams going,” Mike said.  Mike noted that often litigation results when real estate closing funds are intercepted by fraudsters.  “Who is left holding the bag depends on a number of circumstances. At the end of the day, the person usually left holding the bag is often going to be the settlement agent who didn’t notice the [irregular] payoff statement and authorized it,” he said.

Bethany explained why real estate transactions are particularly vulnerable.  “When you have a real estate transaction, a lot of times you have major funds transferring hands.  You’ve got prior mortgages that are being paid off. You’ve got loan proceeds being transferred. You’ve got large sums of money being transferred. And I think that’s probably what they’re looking for—they’re thinking this is an easy way that I can sneak in there and I can grab that money.”

Among the recommendations Mike and Bethany provide to avoid falling victim to wire fraud are reviewing the information in the payoff demand, not just the wire information; calling the beneficiary at a known number and verifying the information; resisting pressure to close too quickly; and being suspicious of last-minute changes in closing directions.

See the full article at Wire Fraud.

New Jersey Expands Vaccination Mandate to Include Boosters and Eliminate Testing Exemptions

For more information about this blog post, please contact Khaled J. KleleRyan M. MageeConnor Breza, or Labinot Alexander Berlajolli.

On January 19, 2022, New Jersey Governor Murphy signed Executive Order No. 283, which requires workers at healthcare and high-risk congregate settings to be up‑to‑date with their COVID‑19 vaccinations, including any booster shots for which workers are eligible. There is no testing alternative. The Order also requires covered settings to have a disciplinary process for noncompliance, including and up to termination of employment.

For purposes of the Order:

  • “Healthcare settings” include: acute, pediatric, inpatient rehabilitation, and psychiatric hospitals, including specialty hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers; long‑term care facilities; intermediate care facilities; residential detox, short‑term and long‑term residential substance abuse disorder treatment facilities; clinic‑based settings like ambulatory care, urgent care clinics, dialysis centers, Federally Qualified Health Centers, family planning sites, and Opioid Treatment Programs; community‑based healthcare settings including Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, pediatric and adult medical daycare programs, and licensed home health agencies and registered healthcare service firms operating within the state.
  • “High-risk congregate settings” include: State and county correctional facilities; all congregate care settings operated by the Juvenile Justice Commission, which includes secure care facilities and residential community homes; licensed community residences for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (“IDD”) and traumatic brain injury (“TBI”); licensed community residences for adults with mental illness; certified day programs for individuals with IDD and TBI; and group homes and psychiatric community homes licensed by the Department of Children and Families.
  • Workers include full and part‑time employees, contractors, and other individuals working in the covered settings, including those who provide operational, custodial, or administrative support.

Workers of covered settings subject to the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate will have until January 27, 2022 to obtain their first dose of the primary series of a COVID‑19 vaccination, and must submit proof that they are fully vaccinated, including boosters for those eligible, by February 28, 2022. Workers of covered settings not subject to the Biden Administration’s vaccinate mandate will have until February 16, 2022 to obtain their first dose, and must submit proof that they are fully up‑to‑date by March 30, 2022. Workers who become eligible for a booster dose after the respective February 28 and March 30 deadlines will be required to submit proof of their booster shot within three weeks of becoming eligible.

NJ Law Requires Creditors to Notify Municipal Officials Regarding Commercial Property Foreclosures

Legislation (A2877) just signed by the Governor will now require a creditor to notify municipal officials regarding its foreclosure of commercial properties, maintain the exterior of the commercial properties and register commercial properties under an ordinance creating a property registration program in the municipality. P.L. 2021, c. (chapter law citation pending).

Although the underlying legislation has been introduced in some form since 2014, it was substantially amended in the final hours of the two-year legislative session in the last Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee on January 6, 2022 to include expanded language applicable to commercial properties. The amended legislation, the new description of which "[c]oncerns municipal property registration ordinances to address risk of blight," was quickly passed by both houses of the Legislature in the last legislative voting sessions on January 10, 2022, and was sent to the Governor's desk for action. Ordinarily, the State Constitution provides a 45-day period within which the Governor can review and take action on legislation that gets to his desk. However, since the New Jersey Legislature was at the end of its two-year session, the Constitution only provides a 7-day period for such review. The Governor signed the measure on January 18, 2022.

The law took effect immediately upon signature, except that municipalities that have existing ordinances that address property registration programs are required to amend their ordinances to the extent necessary to make them consistent with this act by August 1, 2022. Many municipalities in New Jersey have adopted property registration ordinances, including cities like Newark, East Orange, Atlantic City, Jersey City and East Rutherford and smaller towns like Metuchen, Absecon and Laurel Springs, often using the authority of the 2003 Abandoned Properties Rehabilitation Act, N.J.S.A 55:19-78 et seq., which applies to all properties.

The latest legislative changes were largely prompted by an entity who lost a court challenge in Atlantic County in August 2021 that held that the ordinances dealing with vacant and abandoned properties were unconstitutional, “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” and that the definition of a vacant or abandoned property in the ordinances is "overly broad." McCormick 106 L.L.C. v. Cmty. Champions Corp., No. ATL-L-2311-18, 2021 N.J. Super. (Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 2021) (appeal pending). In that case, Assignment Judge Julio Mendez of the Atlantic County Superior Court granted summary judgment against a private entity hired by three towns in Atlantic County to impose fees since it lacked the statutory authority as a private company to collect and manage public funds and impose fees on property owners that “exceed the bounds of reasonableness.” The Court also noted that it was "alarmed by the excessive fee structure," calling it a "revenue scheme" and concluded that the company wrongly misrepresented unpaid registration fees as liens on the property. The Court stated that:

"[t]he overly broad definition of [vacant and abandoned property] VAP, in the Court's view, is directed at increasing revenue rather than solving issues related to vacant and abandoned homes. Even worse in the Court's opinion, the ordinances may have the effect of punishing homeowners with unreasonably high fees, irrespective of the fact that these property owners are still maintaining their property, paying off their mortgage, and these ordinances pose an additional undue hardship for no rational basis."

One of the Court's admonitions is telling: “The Court has great concerns that this ultra-broad definition of vacant and abandoned homes, which is triggered upon a mere default, is targeting financially vulnerable homeowners, is driven towards increasing municipal revenue, and is not reasonably addressing issues related to [vacant and abandoned properties] VAPs.” See also Charles Toutant, "Judge Renounces Towns' 'Zombie House' Regulations as a Money Grab", New Jersey Law Journal (August 17, 2021).

Section 1 of the new law contains the following legislative findings and declarations evidencing the Legislature's intent:

a. Although New Jersey has made great strides in addressing previous foreclosure crises, foreclosure continues to be an issue confronting residents and municipalities;

b. Properties in foreclosure proceedings can involve properties that are vacant and abandoned or have an increased risk of becoming vacant and abandoned during the foreclosure proceeding;

c. Vacant and abandoned properties in foreclosure create a greater risk of blight and can create a wide range of problems for the communities in which they are located. These problems can include fostering criminal activity, creating public health problems, depressing neighboring property values and reducing revenues for municipalities, and otherwise diminishing the quality of life for residents and business operators in those areas;

d. Because of the increased risk of blight created by properties in foreclosure, it is important that municipalities possess tools to identify such properties, monitor their status, and mitigate the risk that they become vacant and abandoned and, if vacant and abandoned, lead to blight. The costs of identifying, monitoring, and mitigating such risks can adversely impact a municipality’s finances;

e. The State has enacted statutes intended to assist municipalities in addressing such risks, including requiring that municipalities receive notice of the initiation of a foreclosure action in court in connection with residential properties and authorizing a public officer in a municipality to take certain action against properties that have been abandoned for more than six months;

f. Although these State laws provide municipalities with certain tools to address blight and the risk of blight, the laws do not apply to all properties, enable municipalities to create a comprehensive way to identify, monitor, and address the risk of blight on all such properties within their jurisdictions, or address the costs to municipalities to do so;

g. A number of municipalities have adopted ordinances on an ad hoc basis to create property registration programs to identify, monitor, and address the risk of blight on residential and commercial properties within their jurisdictions; and

h. The Legislature finds such property registration programs provide a valuable tool to municipalities in confronting the risk of blight created by properties on which foreclosure proceedings have been initiated and such properties that become vacant and abandoned. The Legislature finds that it is in the State’s interest for municipalities that operate such programs to do so with certain uniformity as part of the State’s overall statutory scheme addressing the risk of blight.

Under the new law, a municipality is authorized to contract with and set the compensation of a private entity to assist in the implementation and administration of the property registration program. Section 3d. The municipality can delegate the private entity to identify properties subject to the registration requirements, maintain and update property registrations, communicate with creditors, invoice, and collect payment from the creditors for residential and commercial properties, and monitor compliance.

A municipality can impose an annual fee on the creditor for the property registration not to exceed $500 per property in foreclosure and not to exceed $2000 if the property is vacant and abandoned. Section 3d. The same high penalty of $2500 per day can be imposed on an out-of-state creditor for failing to appoint an in-state representative. Section 3g. Other creditors found by a court to be in violation of other aspects of the ordinance could be subject to a fine of $1,500 for each day of the violation.

The new law essentially copied and pasted the identical provisions in an existing statute, N.J.S.A. 46:10B-51, which governs the registration and maintenance for residential properties in foreclosure. If this area of the law has been uncertain, that is evident by the fact that the original 2008 statute has been amended four times since its original enactment.

The key language applying to commercial properties is found in section 2 of the new law. Creditors filing a summons and complaint in an action to foreclose will now be required to register residential and commercial properties and update the property registration program of any changes in contact information of a creditor's representative or if the registered property becomes vacant and abandoned. Section 2. The property maintenance requirements that have existed for residential properties are now extended to commercial properties in foreclosure if the property is vacant and abandoned. This responsibility is for the care, maintenance, security, and upkeep of the exterior of the residential or commercial property if the property is vacant and abandoned at any time while the property is registered with the property registration program. This includes any requirements to secure the property against unauthorized entry, post a sign affixed to the inside of the property and visible to the public indicating the name, address, and telephone number of the creditor or an out-of-state creditor’s in-state representative or agent for the purpose of receiving service of process, or acquire and otherwise maintain liability insurance by procuring a vacancy policy, covering any damage to any person or any property caused by any physical condition of the property.

This new law requires creditors to file notice with the municipality regarding a commercial property in foreclosure within 10 days after serving a summons and complaint in a foreclosure action on a commercial property, including the contact information for the representative of the creditor responsible for receiving complaints of property maintenance and code violations and the full name and contact information for any person or entity retained by the creditor or a representative of the creditor to be responsible for any care, maintenance, security or upkeep of the commercial property. If the creditor is out-of-state, the notice is required to specify an in-state representative responsible for the care, maintenance, security, and upkeep of the exterior of the commercial property if it becomes vacant and abandoned.

A municipality is authorized to notify the creditor that it has the responsibility to abate any nuisance or correct a municipal code violation, or strict penalties can be imposed by the municipality against the creditor standing in the shoes of the property owner. A municipality can also use public funds to abate a nuisance or correct a violation on a property if the creditor fails to do so and impose a lien pursuant to N.J.S.A.55:19-100 -- a provision in the Abandoned Properties Rehabilitation Act.

In addition, within 30 days, the creditor that has initiated a foreclosure proceeding on a commercial property is required to provide the municipality with a listing of all commercial properties in the municipality for which the creditor has foreclosure actions pending. Section 2a.

Lastly, the new law repealed a 2014 statute, N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.12s, which governed municipal ordinances that required property registration requirements and provisions regarding the care, maintenance, security and upkeep of the exterior of vacant and abandoned residential properties on which a summons and complaint in an action to foreclose has been filed. According to the committee statement, this provision was repealed "and replace[d] it with a new section to enhance clarity." Essentially, it was replaced so the identical registration and maintenance language could be applied to both residential and commercial properties. Under the language in the new law, a municipality can impose property registration fees on creditors.

Lenders and creditors should be aware that some municipalities have taken enforcement actions on the per diem penalties. In fact, we are aware of an instance where a foreclosing lender had to pay a six figure penalty for its failure to register a residential foreclosure property.

If you have any questions about the issues discussed in this article, please contact Mary Kathryn Roberts at mroberts@riker.com.

Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for Title Insurer in Agreement Not to Sue Case

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment for a title insurance company in a dispute regarding an easement’s beneficiaries, holding that the insured released any claims against the title insurer and could not bring a later suit, even for claims assigned to it by another party. See ALR Oglethorpe, LLC v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 863 S.E.2d 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). In the dispute, which involved many lawsuits over many years, ALR Oglethorpe (“ALR”) purchased parcels of property with the intention of creating a mixed-use development. ALR’s law firm, Coleman Talley, asked the title insurance company to prepare a title commitment for the properties.  The resulting title commitment revealed the existence of an access easement across one of the tracts but failed to identify all of the parties benefitted by the easement. Coleman Talley then drafted an agreement to terminate the easement.  However, only the parties who were identified in the title commitment signed the termination. The sale closed on May 15, 2006, but in December 2007, a third party who had not signed the termination notified ALR that it also was a beneficiary of the easement.  ALR made a claim under the title policy.  The title insurance company resolved the claim by purchasing various properties in a series of transactions in order to give the third party alternate access in exchange for the third party releasing its easement rights. The title insurance company and ALR then entered into an agreement entitled “Release, Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue” (the “Agreement”).  ALR later brought a lawsuit against Coleman Talley, who settled the matter and assigned its contribution and indemnification claims to ALR.  ALR then brought another lawsuit against the title insurer, among others, pursuant to these assigned claims.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the title insurance company, holding that the Agreement bars ALR’s claims against it. ALR appealed, arguing that it is asserting Coleman Talley’s claims, and not its own, and that the Agreement only released its own claims.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with ALR, finding that the Agreement contained broad language in which ALR expressly released the title company “from any and all liability for any and all claims . . . arising out of or relating in any way to the released claims . . . ” The Agreement defined “released claims” as “any claims or other matters . . .  arising out of or in connection with the [p]olicy [c]laims,” which it defined as “any claims or matters arising out of the [e]asement.” ALR expressly agreed that it would not participate in or institute “any suit or action, at law or in equity” against the title company in order to effectuate the parties’ “wish to resolve any and all claims by [ALR] against [the title company] . . . relating in any way to the [e]asement.” The Court held that this and other language in the Agreement showed the parties’ intent to encompass not only ALR’s claims, but the claims assigned to ALR.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com, Desiree McDonald at dmcdonald@riker.com, or Kevin Hakansson at khakansson@riker.com.

New Jersey Reinstates Public Health Emergency, But Immunity for Providers Is Not Extended

For more information about this blog post, please contact Khaled J. KleleRyan M. MageeLabinot Alexander Berlajolli, or Connor Breza.

Yesterday, on January 11, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy issued Executive Order No. 280, reinstating the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency for the State of New Jersey which had been previously terminated. This action comes as a result of the Omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus.

Following the enactment of Executive Order No. 280, Governor Murphy issued an additional Executive Order extending and reinstating previous Executive Orders geared at mitigating the spread of COVID-19 and strengthening the State’s healthcare system’s response at combatting the virus. Specifically, Executive Order No. 281 reinstates Executive Orders Nos. 111, 112, and 207 back into full force and effect, and continues the effectiveness of Executive Orders Nos. 251, 252, 253, 264, and 271 as well as certain regulatory actions taken by the Executive branch departments and agencies in response to COVID-19, including various administrative orders, directives, and waivers. The State, however, did not extend the immunity related to the COVID-19 response bestowed by Executive Order No. 112.

As required under the Emergency Health Powers Act, this most recent Public Health Emergency will expire 30 days from its declaration, unless otherwise extended by the Governor.

Rhode Island District Court Grants Summary Judgment in Title Insurance Coverage Appeal

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island recently granted a title insurance company’s motion for reconsideration, holding that the insured did not suffer a loss when it lost title to two properties upon which it could not build improvements.   See IDC Properties, Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4355259 (D.R.I. 2021). The case involved an insured who obtained a $10 million title insurance policy when it purchased three properties that it planned to develop.  As a result of rulings from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the insured lost its title to two of the parcels of land (the “South and West Units”).  The insured brought a claim, which the title insurance company denied.  The insured then brought this lawsuit, arguing that it lost title as well as its right to construct improvements, including residential properties, on those pieces of property.  The title insurer moved for summary judgment, but the Court denied the motion, finding that there were issues of fact as to the insured’s damages.  In making this conclusion, however, the Court did not consider the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s earlier determination that the insured could not build houses on the units as improvements.

The title insurer moved for reconsideration, and the Court granted the motion.  In doing so, the Court accepted its argument that “‘when [the insured] lost title to the South and West Units, [the insured] did not lose an ‘improvement’ right to construct new single-family residences in the airspace over portions of the common elements of the Goat Island South Condominium [because] it never had such a right. . . . Without the ability to construct improvements in the airspace that comprised the units, their economic value is zero.’”  The Court acknowledged that it had made a clear error of law, that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and that the title insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to coverage of the South and West units.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com, Desiree McDonald at dmcdonald@riker.com, or Kevin Hakansson at khakansson@riker.com.

New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Material Adverse Change to Borrower’s Financial Condition Sufficient to Invoke Cross-Default Provisions

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a bank, holding that the bank had the right to refuse prepayment on two of its loans based on non-monetary defaults on a third loan when the loan documents contained cross-default provisions. See Bank of China v. L.V.P. Assocs., et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3184 (App. Div. Dec. 30, 2021). This case is of interest as it reaffirms the enforceability of cross-default provisions and that courts will indeed recognize and enforce non-monetary defaults such as a material adverse change in a borrower’s financial condition and debt service coverage ratios.

Paul V. Profeta (“Profeta”) owned the LLCs LVP Associates (“LVP”), 349 Associates (“349”) and 769 Associates (“769” and collectively “Defendants”) that received multi-million dollar commercial mortgage loans from the Bank of China (“the Bank”) in 2007. The loans matured on July 1, 2017, and Defendants did not pay the balance due on the loans. One month before the maturity date, however, the Bank had refused to permit Defendants to prepay the LVP and 349 loans and to secure the release of the mortgage liens on those properties. In doing so, the Bank invoked the loan agreements’ cross-default provisions, which made it an event of default by one borrower if there is an event of default by one of the two other borrowers. The Bank argued that multiple non-monetary, pre-maturity defaults by 769 constituted defaults by all Defendants, justifying the Bank’s refusal to release the other two mortgage liens upon prepayment. The Bank alleged that (1) there was a “material adverse change” in 769’s “financial condition or results of operations . . . or . . . the value of [its] Property”; (2) the Bank “in the exercise of its sole reasonable discretion, deem[ed] itself insecure”; and (3) the ratio of 769’s net operating income to its debt service — the “Debt Service Coverage Ratio” or “DSCR” — had fallen below the required 1.25 to 1. The trial court agreed that 769’s pre-maturity defaults justified the Bank’s actions and granted the Bank summary judgment, striking Defendants’ answers and counterclaims and deeming the Bank’s foreclosure complaint as uncontested, later entering final judgments of foreclosure.

In appealing the orders against 349 and LVP, Defendants contended, among other things, that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank’s allegations of “material adverse change,” insecurity, and 769’s DSCR. After first noting that the loan agreements did not define “material adverse change” and there was no subjective standard for determining if a materially adverse change has occurred, the Court disagreed with Defendants. With regard to 769’s “material adverse change," the Court found that the drop in 769’s property value from nearly $16 million to $8 million, as well as the steady rise in the vacancy rate of third party tenants from 27% to 62% in 769’s property, affected the Bank’s financial risks associated with making and holding the loan and were thus material. The fact that the Bank did not obtain an appraisal until after it declared default “matters not” because the Bank “relied on the expertise of its employees who opined, based on the rent rolls and general economic conditions, the property’s value had fallen.” The Court also rejected Defendants’ argument that if the adverse changes to 769’s finances were material, the Bank would have acted sooner, stating that “a creditor’s temporary forbearance in exercising its remedies upon its debtor’s default does not preclude the creditor from subsequently exercising those rights.”

Regarding the Bank’s insecurity, the Court found that the same developments that gave rise to the “material adverse change,” along with the threat of 769 filing for bankruptcy and 769 representative Steven Coleman’s (“Coleman”) statement that 769 would not be able to repay the loan, gave rise to the Bank’s insecurity. The Court held that these facts were so one-sided that a reasonable jury would not find against the Bank’s claim of insecurity, and refused to allow Defendants to create a dispute of material fact by claiming there was “confusion” about Coleman’s statement. It dismissed Coleman’s contradiction after a break in his deposition of his earlier deposition testimony admitting that 769 could not pay the loan as a violation of the sham affidavit doctrine. Regarding the DSCR, the Court acknowledged that there may have been a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 769’s DSCR did fall below 1.25 to 1.00, but held that because there existed the other pre-maturity defaults by 769, the Bank was justified in invoking the cross-default provisions and declaring 349 and LVP in default.

Defendants also claimed that the Bank breached the loan documents and violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing Defendants’ offer to prepay the loans. While the Court acknowledged that the Bank misinterpreted some terms of the loan agreements, including incorrectly informing Defendants that they had to pay 115% of the outstanding principal in order to prepay the loans and sending unsupported default notices, the misinterpretations did not constitute material breaches of the loan agreements because, even if the Bank had interpreted all provisions correctly, Defendants still would not be entitled to the release of the lien if it prepaid the two loans. The Court also rejected Defendants’ covenant of good faith and fair dealing arguments, stating that both Defendants and the Bank were sophisticated parties seeking to exploit their contractual rights to maximum benefit, and that the Bank was entitled to enforce the contracts as written. Finally, the Court held that Defendants could not argue that the Bank violated its own internal loan guidelines as a defense: “we are unaware of any authority — and defendants point to none — that a borrower may defend a default on the ground that the lender did not follow its own internal guidelines, even if the default was justified under the borrower’s agreement with the lender. Defendants lack standing to object to the bank’s compliance with its own internal practices.”

Banks should take note of this decision, which gives detailed guidance on what courts look at in determining to enforce non-monetary defaults and particularly material adverse changes and DSCRs. The Court re-enforced that significant shifts in property value and in a property owner’s third-party vacancy rate constitute materially adverse changes and grounds for a bank’s insecurity that will justify calling a loan. As the Court held, to be considered materially adverse, the change “must have been enduring and of significant proportion,” and that in the context of a loan transaction and a bank’s decision-making process, the adverse change “had to affect the financial risks associated with making and holding the loan.”

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com, Desiree McDonald at dmcdonald@riker.com, or Kevin Hakansson at khakansson@riker.com.

Get Our Latest Insights

Subscribe