Trafficking In Deficiency Judgments An Upcoming Cottage Industry Being Seen On The Horizon?

The following excerpt buried in a recent story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune serves as a caution to financially-strapped homeowners and 'strategic defaulters' thinking of walking away from their underwater homes and investment property:

• Florida is gliding quietly into a new and potentially painful part of the boom-bust cycle, where stacked-up "deficiency judgments" for unpaid condo fees and unsatisfied mortgages could come back to haunt past owners. Many of them thought they had escaped further costs when they handed their home over to their lender.



• When a lender sells a foreclosed home for less than the mortgage, the difference -- or "deficiency" -- is typically registered in the court proceedings as being owed by the original borrower, but it is seldom paid.



• The same thing can happen with unpaid condo or homeowner fees. Either as part of the bank foreclosure or through a separate foreclosure action, the homeowner or condo association can ask the court for a deficiency judgment.



• In either case, even if these debt instruments gather dust for years, they remain valid and are accruing interest at the rate of 6 percent to 18 percent per year.

***

• [In Florida, t]here is a five-year period from the end of a case judgment to establish a deficiency judgment.(1) Then that judgment lasts for 10 years and it can be renewed for another 10 years. "You can even sue at the end and get more time, so there is all the time in the world to collect on these things,"(2) Soto said. "Yet there is this pervasive rumor that you can somehow walk away from your house and never have to worry about it again. And it is simply not true."(3)

For more, see Foreclosure fees haunt homeowner associations.

(1) See Time in which the plaintiff must apply for a deficiency judgment in a Florida foreclosure case.

(2) See Burshan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 805 So.2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001):

• The "main purpose of an action on a judgment is to obtain a new judgment which will facilitate the ultimate goal of securing satisfaction of the original cause of action." Adams v. Adams, 691 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
  
  If a limitations period has almost run on a judgment, a judgment creditor "can start the limitation period anew by bringing an action on the judgment to obtain a new judgment." 47 AM.JUR.2D Judgments § 945 (1995); accord Adams, 691 So.2d at 11 (quoting Koerber v. Middlesex College, 136 Vt. 4, 383 A.2d 1054, 1057 (1978)). A party may not relitigate the merits of the original cause of action in an action on a judgment. See Klee v. Cola, 401 So.2d 871, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

(3) There is also a pervasive belief (and seemingly persuasive argument) that a judgment creditor can just sit on its claim, without making any attempt to collect on the money owed, wait for the debtor to get financially back on his feet, and then go after him for the unpaid debt, all the while accumulating additional judgment interest on the amount owed.

Specifically in Florida (and elsewhere, I'm sure), a "foot-dragging" creditor intentionally twiddling its thumbs in such a case may be found to to have "slept on its rights" and, consequently, leave itself vulnerable to a laches defense, as some presumably flabbergasted creditors in Florida have mournfully discovered, even though the 20-year period had yet to expire. See:

• Winter v. Allstate Mortg. Corp., 303 So. 2d 399 (Fla. App. 3d DCA. 1974):
  
  Of course, a party ordinarily has twenty years in which to enforce a judgment in Florida. However, when undue delays are exercised without sufficient reason, it has been held that equitable defenes may be raised which may cut off the right to satisfy a judgment. Orr v. Allen-Hanford, Inc., Fla.1946, 158 Fla. 34, 27 So.2d 823; Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., Fla.1949, 38 So.2d 43.
  
  In the instant case, no effort was undertaken by the original judgment creditor, Brown, to satisfy his judgment, and it was not until eight years later that the appellee brought this action which informed the appellants for the first time of the existence of the judgment.
  
  It is also apparent that appellee's motive in purchasing the judgment was to assist it in acquiring the appellants' property at a reduced price. To permit foreclosure on a relatively valuable piece of property to satisfy the comparatively meager sum due because of the judgment would be inequitable under the circumstances of this case.
  
  Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the appellants.
• Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., Fla.1949, 38 So.2d 43:
  
  In the case of Orr v. Allen-Hanford, Inc., 158 Fla. 34, 27 So.2d 823, we held that a creditor may satisfy his judgment within twenty years, but when undue delays are exercised without sufficient reasons shown therefor, equitable defenses become available that may cut off the right to satisfy the judgment.

See also, NH Couple Beats Back Debt Scavenger's Attempt To Collect On Zombie Debt From Old Foreclosed Mortgage:

• The judge also agreed with Wright's argument, under a legal doctrine known as a "Laches" defense, that Cadle had waited to try to collect the debt so that interest and late fees would pile up. The original loan deficiency on the Lessards' note was about $14,000, but Cadle was trying to collect nearly $30,000 by the time the lawsuit was filed.