[WSBARP] Acceleration & Chapter 7 Discharge /// Copper Creek Homeowners Association v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, et. al
Kary Krismer
Krismer at comcast.net
Wed Jan 19 12:52:40 PST 2022
There are apparently two other cases. Eng v. Specialized Loan filed
12/13/21 and Love v. West Coast Servicing. And apparently some conflict
between the cases, but I have not read them to compare.
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 1/19/2022 12:34 PM, Ann Marshall wrote:
> Hi, All:
>
> I know this issue has been percolating for a few years. I saw this
> published Division 1 case from yesterday and, well, old habits die
> hard I guess, so I did a case summary! Here it is if you're interested
> in this issue. Disclaimer: rely at your peril & always consult the
> full opinion before use! 😀
>
> *Holding*: The Washington Court of Appeals Division 1 held that a
> discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case does not accelerate an
> installment promissory note, reversing the trial court’s summary
> judgment in favor of the current property owner. Accordingly, the
> statute of limitations barred recovery of certain installment
> payments, but not the entirety of the debt.
>
>
> *Facts*:
>
> * 2007: the Kurtzes purchased residential property, obtained a loan,
> and granted a deed of trust to secure the loan. Mr. Kurtz was
> active duty in the military at the time of the loan and through
> 2020. The property was in a HOA called Copper Creek.
> * 2007 or 2008: the Kurtzes failed to make monthly mortgage payments
> and moved out of the property in 2008.
> * February 2010: Ms. Kurtz filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
> * June 2010: the debt was discharged in the bankruptcy as to Ms.
> Kurtz and the BK case was closed June 18, 2010.
> * July 2010: the Kurtzes failed to pay HOA assessments.
> * March 2011: Mr. Kurtz filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
> * July 13, 2011: the debt was discharged in the bankruptcy as to Mr.
> Kurtz, and his case BK closed on July 18, 2011.
> * November 2018: the HOA recorded a lien for unpaid assessments and
> commenced a judicial foreclosure. It did not seek to foreclose or
> otherwise impar the DOT because the DOT was senior.
> * October 30, 2019: the trustee on the Selene DOT issued a Notice of
> Trustee’s Sale.
> * June 2020: Copper Creek/HOA obtained title to the property through
> a deed in lieu of foreclosure from the Kurtzes.
>
> The HOA sought to restrain the trustee’s sale, asserting that the
> statute of limitations barred enforcement of the DOT. Selene
> challenged Copper Creek’s standing. Copper Creek obtained a deed
> in lieu of foreclosure from the Kurtzes and obtained title to the
> property. Discovery disputes ensued and eventually the trial court
> granted summary judgment in favor of Copper Creek, quieting title
> free and clear of the Selene DOT and awarding attorney’s fees to
> Copper Creek in the amount of approximately $96,000.
>
> *Analysis*:
>
> First, the Court held that Mr. Kurtz’s active military service
> tolled the state statute of limitations under 50 U.S.C. § 3936(a),
> the Servicemembers Credit Relief Act (SCRA). Specifically, the
> 6-year statute of limitations on the unpaid installments began to
> run on July 14, 2011, the day after Mr. Kurtz’s BK discharge.
>
> Second, the Court held that the BK discharge did not accelerate
> the maturity date of an installment promissory note, noting that
> the debt could still be enforced in rem. The Court noted that
> several federal court decisions relying on /Edmundson v. Bank of
> America/, 194 Wn. App. 920, 378 P.3d 272 (2016) for the
> proposition that discharge accelerates an installment note were in
> error. The Court also said that, to the extent that unpublished
> state court opinions have repeated the federal interpretation,
> were in error. The Court discussed the/Edmundson/case in depth, as
> well as the cases that have interpreted it. The Court held that
> the bankruptcy discharge did not change the debt, the note, or the
> payment schedule. Therefore, because the discharge did not
> accelerate the note, the statute of limitations did not run on the
> entirety of the debt, but only on those payments due prior to
> November 2013.
>
> Third, the Court reversed the trial court’s attorney fee award in
> favor of Copper Creek. And it awarded fees and costs to Selene
> because Copper Creek acquired its interest from Kurtz through the
> deed in lieu of foreclosure and is subject to the terms of the DOT.
>
>
> Full opinion here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/820834.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *__*
>
> cid:image005.png at 01D46634.8C1313A0
>
>
>
> *Ann T. Marshall, Esq.
> *Mediator/Arbitrator
>
> *JAMS -/Local Solutions. Global Reach.^TM /*
>
> 1420 Fifth Ave. | #1650 | Seattle, WA 98101
>
> Cell/Text: 206.619.8043
>
> E-mail: amarshall at jamsadr.com
>
> www.jamsadr.com <https://www.jamsadr.com/marshall/>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220119/2931faad/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list