In M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller, 1 CA-CV 10-0804, the Arizona Court of Appeals said that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute applies to those who buy land with the intent to occupy the property upon completing building a home even if they do not complete construction and actually occupy the property.  In Mueller, the family bought a lot and borrowed $440,000 from M&I Bank to build a single-family home on the property for their own use.  Months into the construction they abandoned the property after experiencing construction delays and defaulted on the note.  M&I Bank repossessed the property with a non-judicial foreclosure and sought to recover the deficiency.

M&I Bank argued that the debtors were not entitled to protection because the home was never constructed; therefore, the property was not “utilized” for a single-family home.  In Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Association of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 129, 804 P.2d 1310, 1317 (1991), a commercial homebuilder defaulted on a loan during the construction of homes for resale.  The homes had not been fully completed as of the date of the default.  The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute did not protect the debtor from a deficiency judgment because the property was not “utilized as a dwelling when it is unfinished, has never been lived in, and is being held for sale to its first occupant by the owner who has no intent to ever occupy the property.”  The Appellate Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that when raw land is purchased by the debtor with the intent to personally occupy the property, the anti-deficiency statute applies even if the home is not constructed and the property is not occupied.  However, where the raw land is purchased by the debtor with the intent to never personally occupy the land the anti-deficiency statute does not apply.  The Court held that this framework serves the primary purpose of the anti-deficiency statute which is to protect homeowners from deficiency judgments.  The Court further held that any requirement that a person has to physically inhabit the dwelling creates an artificial line that creates absurd results.  For example, the Court noted that an individual that lived in a home for one day would be entitled to protection, but an individual that has not moved into a newly completed home would not be entitled to protection.

At the Law Firm of William A. Miller we handle this type of claim against the bank. Call us at 602-319-6899 or visit us at 8170 North 86th Place Scottsdale, Arizona 85258.

When your lender reduces and “forgives” debt, it used to send a Form 1099 for the amount of reduced or forgiven debt. This amount needed to be included as income on your tax return. It is often called phantom income. But, because of new law, there’s a big exception when it comes to mortgage debt secured by your primary residence.

The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 allows you to exclude from your income the debt that’s left over after a foreclosure. The law applies for the calendar years 2007 through 2012.

You can find more information about the act in IRS Publication 4681, Canceled Debts, Foreclosures, Repossessions, and Abandonments, as well as in IRS news release IR-2008-17.

Call long-time Scottsdale, Arizona attorney William A. Miller for more information at 602.319.6899.

We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.