forclosurePhoto byBarry Zalma

Foreclosure Changes Insurable Interest from Borrower to Lender

Barry Zalma
Dec 12, 2023

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dSZbx32Q and sSee the full video at https://lnkd.in/dQXQiEdQ and at https://lnkd.in/dEw5QFcW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4787 posts.

Post 4787

In this contested residential mortgage foreclosure, defendants Mitchell and Deanna Minchello appealed from the entry of summary judgment. Defendants contended that plaintiff violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by “refusing to disburse defendants’ insurance proceeds and forcing defendants’ home to remain in disrepair” and that the trial court applied an improper standard.

In Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, as owner trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust V v. Mitchell Minchello and Deanna Minchello, and J Hofert Company, FIA Card Services NA, Schumann Hanlon LLC, Discover Bank, Vanz LLC-December 10 Series01, Mri-West Morris Associates, and State Of New Jersey, No. A-3522-21, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (December 8, 2023) the issues were resolved.

FACTS

The essential facts were undisputed. Defendants borrowed $522,000 in January 2007, secured by a thirty-year purchase money mortgage on their home in Mt. Arlington. Defendants stopped making their loan payments in 2010, and in 2012 they stopped paying the taxes and insurance on the property. In 2014 the lenders asserted its rights by suing for foreclosure in March 2015.

Defendants filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13. The following day, December 7, defendant Deanna Minchello drove her car into defendants’ home, resulting in structural damage. The only insurance was forced placed insurance in the name of the lender.

ANALYSIS

The trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The judge found no dispute over the validity of the note and mortgage, defendants’ default in 2010 and plaintiff’s standing to foreclose the mortgage. Whether the lender allowed the insurance money to go to repair the structure was irrelevant since the foreclosure put the insurable interest in the lender and the lender was the only person insured.

Although the procedural history is long and complicated with the parties’ appendices exceeding 800 pages, the legal issues are straightforward, and the Court of Appeals had no hesitation in holding plaintiff established its entitlement to both summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s orders that plaintiff established its right to foreclose the mortgage, that defendants did not succeed in establishing plaintiff should be barred from asserting that equitable remedy, and that final judgment of foreclosure was properly entered against defendants.

ZALMA OPINION

When borrowers fail to pay mortgage payments, insurance premiums and taxes they have no insurance in their name, only the insurance acquired by the lender to protect its interests. The lender can apply the insurance to repair or simply apply it to reduce the debt. It took unmitigated gall to sue the lenders in this after defaulting in every obligation owed by a property owner that pledged the property as security for the loan. The court found it necessary to read and analyze all 800 pages and still found the trial court’s judgment in favor of the lender to be appropriate. Why the court did not sanction the borrowers and their attorneys is confusing to me.

(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.