Skip to main content

Court Blocks Developers’ Ploy to Avoid Additional Payments

New Miami Blog

New Miami Blog
October 03, 2014

We are often asked when representing a client in defense of a claim whether the client could avoid the liability asserted by the claimant by potentially buying the cause of action out from under the claimant. The most common circumstance is when the plaintiff has an adverse uncollected judgment or, perhaps, owes money under a promissory note in default.  Prior decisional law has been sparse, particularly in Florida. Until now.

In a case decided last week, the Third District Court of Appeal foiled developers’ plan to strategically foreclose its own mortgage in order to wipe out a construction lien recorded against the same property by the general contractor.  In CDC Builders, Inc. v. Biltmore-Sevilla Debt Investors, LLC, et al. No. 3D13-603, 2014 WL 4628515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling which had permitted a related entity to purchase the developers’ own construction loan from the construction lender, and thereafter foreclose the loan for the central purpose of wiping out a contractor’s construction lien on the property.

This artful legal saga began when developers, Riviera Biltmore, LLC and Riviera Sevilla, LLC, both of which are managed by Brian McBride, hired general contractor, CDC Builders, Inc., to build 25 luxury homes in Coral Gables.  When the developers failed to pay the contractor for the last 8 homes constructed, the contractor recorded two construction liens for the unpaid work.  At the same time, the developers were also in default of their construction loan.

In order to avoid its obligation to satisfy the construction liens, the developers schemed to create a related company to purchase the defaulted construction loan and thereafter assign the loan to the related entity. The loan assignment allowed the developers’ related entity to step into the Bank’s superior lien position.  The related entity thereafter foreclosed against the developers and the contractor so as to wipe out the contractor’s construction liens which were inferior in time to the construction loan.  This tactic worked at the trial court level, causing a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the related entity.

But on appeal, the Third DCA reversed and held that a person will not be permitted to do indirectly what he is not permitted to do directly.  In fact, the Court specifically noted that:

“The law does not permit a person to borrow money from a bank, give the bank a mortgage, incur additional liens and junior mortgages on the property, purchase the mortgage back from the bank, and then foreclose on the mortgage for the primary purpose of eliminating the additional liens and junior mortgages.

. . .

[I]nvestors cannot grant mortgages, contract for the improvement of the property mortgaged, and then use a network of companies to purchase and foreclose the mortgage for the primary purpose of extinguishing the construction liens that increased the value of the property.”

As construction continues to heat up in South Florida, it is clear that courts will be intolerant to schemes that have the effect of depriving lienors of their right payment.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Publication November 1, 2013
Although lenders have more confidence, don’t expect them to lend more than 20 to 30 percent of the construction costs of a project anytime soon, said Adam Lustig, a partner in the real estate group at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod. He recently completed a more than $40 million lendi...
New Miami Blog September 05, 2013
On September 26, Bilzin Sumberg will host the next installment of our New Miami Breakfast Series, “The Return of Real Estate Financing: Passing Trend or Here to Stay?” We invite you to join us as we take a mid-year look at the noteworthy loans that closed over the first half of the year and the...&#...
Financial Services Watch Blog January 21, 2013
The days of exotic mortgage programs like “no doc” and balloon loans may be over.Earlier this month, the long awaited (and by many lenders and experts, dreaded), lending restrictions codified in the Dodd Frank Act finally went into effect. The rules, promulgated by the Consumer Financial...
VIEW MORE