The Second District Court of Appeals, Division 4, recently confirmed that the anti-deficiency protections of borrowers under California Civil Code section 580d (CCP 580d) also preclude a personal judgment against a foreclosed borrower by the junior lender where the senior and junior were the same and the senior non-judicial foreclosure sale wipes out their second. The court followed the 1992 case of Simon v Superior Court distinguishing the wiped out second here from those permitted a right to a personal judgment from a borrower in the 1963 California Supreme Court Case of Roseleaf Corp v Chierighino.
GreenPoint Mortgage, Inc. (GreenPoint) made a loan of $315,000 secured by Mr. Mitchell’s home. That loan was divided into two notes ($252,000 and $63,000) with each note secured by a separate deed of trust. So, in essence, the single loan was divided into two with the smaller note amount being placed in a junior lien position to the larger note. Mitchell defaulted on the first, GreenPoint elected to non-judicially foreclose by way of the deed of trust power of sale and sold the property to a third party bidder. Over a year later, GreenPoint sells the smaller note and assigned the wiped out second deed of trust to Bank of America (Bank). The Bank then sued Mr. Mitchell to recover the amounts owing on that note and second deed of trust.
Citing Roseleaf, the Bank argued that it should be treated like all holders of a non-purchase money junior lien wiped out by the senior’s foreclosure. The appellate court disagreed holding that California’s anti-deficiency statutes (in this case C.C.P. §580d) precluded treatment of the Bank as the sold-out junior in Roseleaf. The court distinguished the right of a sold-out junior as identified in the Roseleaf case from the Bank in this case on the basis that second deed of trust was eliminated as a direct result of the foreclosure by the same lender that made the original loan (i.e. GreenPoint). GreenPoint chose to separate the single loan into two notes and deeds of trust and controlled the elimination of the security for the second smaller note by initiating and completing the non-judicial foreclosure. In the Roseleaf scenario, the junior lender did not control the senior loan or the decision to foreclose. The court reasoned that this made the position of the Bank indistinguishable from the junior lender position in the 1992 Simon case. The Court found that it made no difference that the Bank merely was the assignee since the Bank, as an assignee, stood in the shoes of GreenPoint as to a right to pursue the borrower personally. The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would permit lenders to contrive loan structures to circumvent CCP 580d borrower protections.
It is unclear from the facts of this case whether GreenPoint made the dual structured loan as a “true lender” or whether it was acting, in essence, as a facilitator for two other independent lenders that immediately purchased the loans funded by GreenPoint. It could be argued that in this common lending scenario the mere loan originator (GreenPoint) did not dictate the terms of the loan, its structure into two separate loans or otherwise control the senior’s foreclosure except to the extent it was acting as a servicer following the requirements of the holder of the first and true lender. Arguably such a fact pattern may justify a different analysis and perhaps a different result than handed to the Bank in this case……at least that is what this lawyer thinks™
The foregoing was prepared for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to nor should it be construed as offering or providing legal advice nor does the provision of the foregoing create an attorney-client relationship or other confidential relationship.


