ARTICLE
24 February 2015

Wisconsin Courts Can Force Lenders To Make Prompt Sales Of Foreclosed Properties Which Have Been Abandoned By The Borrowers

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Lenders should be aware of this case for a number of reasons.
United States Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In a case that "radically revises the law on mortgage foreclosure,"1 the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held in Bank of New York Mellon v. Carson, 2015 WI 15, that Wisconsin circuit courts have the authority to order a sale of mortgaged premises within a reasonable period of time after the redemption period if the property has been abandoned by the borrower.2 In Carson, Shirley Carson defaulted on her mortgage multiple times, and Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for the lender, filed a complaint seeking a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property.3 After Carson failed to respond to the notice of foreclosure, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the Bank.4

In its judgment, the circuit court stated that the Bank could sell the property "at any time after three month(s)," enjoined either party from committing waste on the property, and gave the Bank permission to take steps to secure the property.5 However, the Bank failed to secure the property, and as it sat vacant for sixteen months it was vandalized, burglarized, snow was not shoveled, the lawn was not mowed, and damage was caused by a fire started in the garage.6 As a result, the City of Milwaukee assessed municipal fines of $1,800 on Carson.7 At this point, Carson filed a motion to amend the circuit court's judgment of foreclosure, asking the court to find that the property is abandoned and force a sale of the property within five weeks, citing Wis. Stat. § 846.102.8

The case went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held that Wis. Stat. § 846.102 allows a circuit court to force a mortgagee with a foreclosure judgment to sell mortgaged property that has been abandoned, but instead of setting a specific time frame for such a sale, left it up to the court to determine what a reasonable period of time would be based on each individual case's circumstances.9

Lenders should be aware of this case for a number of reasons. First, if a lender is ordered by a court to put mortgaged property up for sale and the lender does not receive a reasonable bid on it, the lender may be forced to buy in at the foreclosure sale. The result would be that the lender, as owner of the property, would be responsible for maintenance of the property, potential municipal fines if they fail to properly maintain the property, and property taxes. Second, if many borrowers and municipalities10 decide to take advantage of this option, that is, filing a motion requesting that the court deem the property abandoned and forcing a sale within a reasonable period of time, it is possible that these sales will flood the market and depress prices: "[T]housands of foreclosed properties statewide may have to be scheduled for sale within a few months of this decision because they have already been held by mortgagees without sale for an 'unreasonable' period after foreclosure."11

Overall, Bank of New York Mellon v. Carson represents a cautionary tale to lenders that circuit courts can order sales of foreclosed, abandoned properties within a "reasonable" time period if prompted by a borrower.

Footnotes

1 Bank of New York Mellon v. Carson, 2015 WI 15, ¶ 71 (Prosser, J., concurring).

2 ¶¶ 44–45.

3 ¶¶ 5–6.

4 ¶¶ 6–8.

5 ¶ 8.

6 ¶¶ 9–10.

7 ¶ 9.

8 ¶ 10.

9 ¶¶ 44–45.

10 It remains to be seen whether municipalities will have standing to bring such an action under § 846.102. Justice Prosser's concurrence suggests that municipalities would not be able to do so, and that their role is limited to presenting evidence of abandonment to the court. ¶ 62 (Prosser, J., concurrence) (citing § 846.102(2)).

11 ¶ 74 (Prosser, J., concurrence).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More