Tag: lending institution

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE SAVVY FIRST MORTGAGEE: SOMETIMES YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

First mortgagee: What is the definition of a mortgagee?

A mortgagee is a person or company who gives a loan and uses the property as security for the debt. The mortgagee is the lender. The property owner who borrows the money is called the mortgagor.

I have acted in many real estate receivership matters. Real estate receiverships in Ontario normally involve a court-appointed receiver. The reason is usually that there are many competing parties and perhaps competing claims. The best way to resolve these disputes and for the party that purchases the real estate from the receiver is through court supervision.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario involving a real estate receivership and the claim of the first mortgagee. I and my Firm are not involved in this matter.

What is the definition of a first mortgagee?

A first mortgage is a loan that is secured by real estate property in priority to any other loans registered against the real property. In the event of default, the first mortgage loan has priority over any other loans that are secured by the property. The first mortgagee is the mortgagee that holds that first mortgage for that mortgage loan.

first mortgagee

Institutional First Mortgagee Definition

The term “institutional first mortgagee” refers to a lending institution that provides financing for a first mortgage loan. Such mortgage lenders are typically a banking institution, credit union, or company that specializes in mortgage lending.

The institutional first mortgagee typically offers the lowest interest rate and best terms for the mortgage loan, especially if they are going to hold an institutional first mortgage. However, this is not the case if the institutional lender is one that deals with harder-to-finance properties or sub-prime mortgage loans.

Is it possible to have more than one mortgage at the same time?

There are instances where multiple mortgages may be an option. However, it is no secret that mortgages can be difficult to obtain. Financial institutions are often hesitant to approve multiple mortgages for fear of the borrower’s ability to repay. It is quite possible that to get more than one mortgage a borrower may have to look at the secondary mortgage market to accomplish that second or third mortgage transaction on the same property.

Every lender is different. One lender may see an opportunity where another would deem it too risky. The terms and pricing being offered will match the lender’s risk assessment. Remember, there can only be one first mortgage. Each subsequent mortgage will be more expensive and may have more onerous terms as each subsequent mortgagee is taking on more risk than the first mortgagee lending against the same real property.

Adding another mortgage may only exacerbate your financial difficulties if you are already struggling to make payments on one. Before making a decision, it is important to carefully weigh all of your options.

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

The case I am about to describe highlights the dangers of having an institutional first mortgage and then having a subsequent mortgagee holding the second mortgage when the owner’s business plan for the commercial real estate does not work out.

First National Financial v. Golden Dragon: You can’t always get what you want

The case before the Court of Appeal for Ontario is an excellent instance of not always obtaining what you want. The Rolling Stones stated it best in their 1969 tune, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”

The Court of Appeal decision that I describe below may seem fairly obvious. First National Financial GP Corporation v. Golden Dragon Ho 10 Inc., 2022 ONCA 621, stands for the proposition that in order for a first mortgagee (or any mortgagee) to make a claim for accelerated interest on the entire debt, or any other claim a mortgagee may make when a mortgage goes into default, you first must look at the mortgage terms to see what exactly they are entitled to.

The first issue to be addressed is a priority dispute between the first mortgagee, First National Financial GP Corporation (First National), the second mortgagee, Liahona Mortgage Investment Corporation (Liahona); and the mortgagors, Golden Dragon Ho 10 Inc. (GDH 10) and Golden Dragon Ho 11 Inc. (GDH 11) (collectively referred to as the mortgagor). The primary concern of this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in deciding that First National, as the first mortgagee, is entitled to payment of a future, unearned, interest to the end of the term of its closed mortgages.

Additionally, Golden Dragon appealed the receiver’s fee and costs approved by the lower court. The Court of Appeal for Ontario quickly dismissed their appeal.

First mortgagee: Should You Take Out a Second Mortgage?

When it comes to your finances, taking on more debt is generally not considered a good idea. However, there are some situations where taking out a second mortgage charge on title can make sense.

Opting for a second mortgage entails some risks. If you’re unable to keep up with all the mortgage payments, you could lose your property through the power of sale proceedings.

Golden Dragon used to own two residential apartment buildings that were next to each other in Ottawa. When they bought these properties, they assumed three closed registered mortgages: the first mortgage on one building, a first mortgage for the second building, and a second mortgage for the second building. All three mortgages were held by First National. Its second mortgage ranked pari passu with its first mortgage.

Despite being required to give notice to First National under its mortgages, Golden Dragon subsequently placed a second mortgage on the first building without giving any notice. This new subsequent mortgage was held by Liahona.

Golden Dragon took out a second mortgage to get access to funds to use to renovate the apartments. However, Golden Dragon was unsuccessful in renovating the properties and became insolvent. As of December 2016, the Liahona second mortgage was in default and no further payments were made.

Liahona issued a notice of sale for the property of Golden Dragon and obtained a default judgment, and a judgment to take possession of the property.

As of June 2017, the First National mortgage charges on title were in default. Their mortgages included cross-default provisions, meaning that a default under one was deemed to be a default under all three First National mortgages. On August 17, 2017, First National made a formal demand that Golden Dragon pays the arrears and cure the non-monetary defaults and delivered notices of intention to enforce security pursuant to s. 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Golden Dragon was unable to cure the borrower defaults and the court appointed the interim receiver after considering the circumstances of default.

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

The interim receiver ensured the properties were stable and increased the rental income. Rather than the first mortgagee or second mortgagee selling the properties by way of a power of sale, the court then expanded the interim receiver’s role to marketing and selling the apartment buildings. The interim receiver requested the court’s approval for the sale of the properties. The court found that the approval conditions were met, the sale was approved, and the properties were sold.

 

What can the first mortgagee claim if the mortgaged properties are sold?

The trial judge’s ruling found that the First National registered mortgages did not give it the right to claim the disputed “yield maintenance penalties,” which included an acceleration of all amounts due until the end of the mortgage terms.

Although the mortgages contained a provision allowing Golden Dragon to redeem the mortgages by paying a “yield maintenance” penalty calculated according to a formula set out in the provision, this privilege only applied if Golden Dragon was not in default under the terms of the mortgages. Since Golden Dragon was in default, it no longer enjoyed the privilege of prepayment of the mortgages. As a result, First National was not entitled to charge a yield maintenance penalty.

Despite this, the trial judge decided that First National was entitled to the amounts it claimed as a condition of payout:

  • under a common law rule that a mortgagee is entitled to all accelerated interest owing to the date of maturity when a closed mortgage is vested off the title before the end of the term; or
  • in accordance with an implied contractual entitlement to interest on the unpaid balance, the trial judge read into the First National mortgages.

Liahona submitted to the trial judge that the first mortgagee was not entitled to accelerated interest under their mortgages unless there was a specific clause in the mortgage authorizing such a claim. The trial judge rejected that argument and concluded that the accelerated interest under the mortgage became due when the registered mortgages were terminated prematurely upon being vested off title pursuant to the court-supervised sale.

What the Court of Appeal for Ontario decided

Liahona and Golden Dragon appealed the trial judge’s decision in interpreting the basics of mortgagee clauses for the following issues:

  • Whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the first mortgagee claim for priority for the accelerated interest under its mortgages under common law.
  • If the trial judge erred by implying a contractual term in the First National mortgages that didn’t exist.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario differed from the lower court’s ruling concerning the mortgagee clause relating to accelerated interest. The appellate court noted that the lower court misapplied the law as well not taking into consideration the full scope of the contracts. It further stated that a loan agreement is interpreted according to standard principles of contract interpretation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario vacated the trial judge’s ruling. Even though First National objected, the appellate court decided that the first mortgagee was only entitled to the principal and interest, plus costs up to the day of the sale of the properties that the court authorized.

First mortgagee: The main point

The main point of this court case is that if you negotiate and bargain for a certain set of contractual terms set out in writing, the court will look at the rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract. This includes any mortgagee clause it bargained for.

I hope you enjoyed this Brandon’s Blog on what this first mortgagee rights and what it was entitled to from the court-supervised sale of the properties. Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? Are you or your company insolvent due to a contract you may have entered into? Can you or your business not able to afford to make all your necessary debt payments, including mortgage payments?

The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt. You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges.

It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We know that we can help you the way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan.

We realize that people and businesses in financial difficulty need practical advice and a workable solution in an easy-to-understand financial plan. The Ira Smith Team knows that not everyone has to file for bankruptcy in Canada. Most of our clients never do, as we are familiar with alternatives to bankruptcy. We assist many people in finding the relief they need.

Call or email us. We can tailor a new debt restructuring procedure specifically for you, based on your unique economic situation and needs. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you’re serious about finding a solution, let us know.

Call us now for a no-cost initial consultation.

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

UNDUE INFLUENCE: ENTREPRENEUR’S SPOUSE’S ONTARIO COLLATERAL SECURITY

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Undue influence introduction

Undue influence refers to a situation in which somebody is pushed into taking an action, usually with respect to their property, rather than under their own uninfluenced decision. The action does not a result of their true wishes or objectives, rather it is those of the influencer.

It is an equitable principle made use of to set aside particular transactions. While initially used on wills, it has also been found in various other transactions such as:

  • powers of attorney; and
  • a spouse providing a collateral mortgage on property owned by the spouse to support that spouse’s guarantee of a business loan taken out by the other spouse or a company owned by one or both spouses.

It is especially important to think about the concept of undue influence and its impact if suspected. This is especially true when the person being influenced is a senior when dealing with estates and wills.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I look at a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in reviewing a lower court’s decision involving the presumption of undue influence.

Presumed undue influence

The decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in JGB Collateral v. Rochon, 2020 ONCA 464 (CanLII) was released on July 17, 2020. Mr. Rochon was Chairman and CEO of a publicly-traded Florida corporation (the “Company” or the “Corporation”). He was also a significant shareholder. The Company borrowed from a New York-based lender. As a condition of the loan, Ms. Rochon was required to give her personal guarantee to the lender for this debt, supported by a collateral mortgage over a farm property she owned in Lanark, Ontario. She did so.

The Corporation defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Mrs. Rochon’s guarantee was governed by New York State law, and the New York court decided that her guarantee was valid and enforceable. The lender used that finding to begin an action in Ontario seeking the possession and sale of the Ontario property.

The Ontario lower court decided that the collateral mortgage on the Ontario property was not enforceable due to the fact that:

  1. It was the result of presumed undue influence on Mrs. Rochon by Mr. Rochon.
  2. The lender had notice thereof.
  3. It did not sufficiently ensure that Mrs. Rochon got independent legal advice prior to providing the guarantee and collateral mortgage security.

The lower court’s decision of the presumed undue influence and undue influence

Whenever there is the presumption of undue influence, the evidence is needed to either prove or disprove the allegation of undue influence. As I mentioned earlier, these legal concepts arise many times in the Estates area. It is not unusual for an Estate Trustee to see the will be challenged on the basis that one or more of the beneficiaries used undue influence on the deceased when the most recent will was drafted and signed.

It also arises in commercial transactions, especially between spouses, when one spouse provides a guarantee like Mrs. Rochon did with collateral security.

The Court of Appeal started out by stating that the presumption of undue influence is a rebuttable presumption based on evidence. It emerges if the nature of the connection between the borrower and the guarantor, coupled with the nature of the transaction between them justifies, without any other evidence, an inference that the transaction was the result of the excessive impact of one party over the other. Evidence is then needed to prove or disprove the presumption of undue influence.

The motion judge decided that the crucial points supporting a presumption of undue influence were satisfied:

“[t]his is a classic case of a spouse who unquestioningly complied with any and all requests by her husband to sign documents related to his business”.

He found two attorneys acted for the stakeholders. One of them was the company’s general counsel and also Mr. and Mrs. Rochon’s daughter. He also noted the evidence of an officer of the lender, that he asked for and received confirmation from both lawyers that everything in the guarantee, including the declaration in it that its terms had been clarified to both Mr. and Mrs. Rochon by an independent lawyer.

The lower court judge decided that this was insufficient. The lender did not get a certificate that Mrs. Rochon was provided with independent legal advice. Additionally, there was no indication that Mrs. Rochon got legal advice independently from (as well as by an independent lawyer) to any kind of legal recommendations given to Mr. Rochon.

He commented that Mrs. Rochon’s difficulty to the enforceability of the mortgage would certainly have been counteracted by the easy tool of calling for ample proof, via a Certification of Independent Legal Advice (or comparable), that Mrs. Rochon was fully knowledgeable about the import of the security that she was offering.

Based on these findings, the lower court judge found that Mrs. Rochon’s guarantee and collateral mortgage security was the product of undue influence. Therefore her guarantee was unenforceable and the collateral mortgage was void and unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario undue influence decision

The appellate court’s three-judge panel reviewed the lower court’s decision and found several errors. Based on the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that:

  1. Mrs. Rochon never argued undue influence in the New York State court case so that issue was never examined there.
  2. The motion court considered just the nature of the connection between Mr. and Mrs. Rochon. He fell short to think about the nature of the transaction between them.
  3. While Mr. and Mrs. Rochon swore in their affidavits before the motion court that Mrs. Rochon had no financial interest in the Company, they acknowledge in their factums before the appeal court that Mrs. Rochon had an interest in the Corporation. However, they suggest that it was not significant, and for that reason, the judge’s failure to clearly consider it is of no importance.
  4. The materials before the motion court included a Schedule 13D filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, signed by Mr. Rochon. It was also submitted with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It shows that Mrs. Rochon was a limited partner holding a 20% interest in a limited partnership holding around 35% of the common shares of the Corporation. The filing also said that she had the indirect right, through the limited partnership, to obtain dividends from, or profits from the sale of, any common shares of the Company owned by the limited partnership.
  5. Therefore, Mrs. Rochon had a significant interest in the Company.
  6. The Company was in numerous aspects that of a family business. The Rochon’s son and daughter were employed by the Corporation. Therefore, aside from her significant economic interest in the Corporation, Mrs. Rochon had a desire to do what she could to sustain it. As she confessed on cross-examination, signing documents when asked by her other half, such as those with this financing, was in both her and her other half’s best interests. From a business perspective, there was an advantage to Mrs. Rochon.
  7. Even if a presumption of undue influence did occur such that the lender was put on notice to make certain Mrs. Rochon was participating in the transaction of her own free will, the lender did so. The lower court judge improperly elevated the test of what a lending institution must do to secure itself from an assertion of presumed undue influence.

Particularly, take practical steps to attempt to ensure that the guarantor understands the deal and is becoming part of it freely, and understands the ramifications of becoming a guarantor, by recommending that the guarantor look for and get independent legal advice.

The lower court improperly boosted the onus on the lender to a demand that a loan provider obtains a written Certification from a lawyer that the attorney has provided independent legal advice to the guarantor. The Court of Appeal For Ontario found that the inquiries made by the lender of the attorneys sufficed to shield it from Mrs. Rochon’s assertion of presumed undue influence.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the lower court decision and gave the lender judgment to seize and sell the Ontario property.

Undue influence summary

This is a very important case for entrepreneurs in Ontario. Entrepreneurs are by definition risk-takers. It is not unusual for them to not have any family assets in their name, either jointly or on their own. Rather, family assets can be shielded by having ownership by a spouse, other family members or a family trust. That way, if the company established by the entrepreneur runs into business problems, the family home or other assets are not at risk.

For this reason, it is common for a bank to ask not only for the entrepreneur’s guarantee for a bank loan to the company, but also the guarantee of his or her spouse. The bank also can and many times does ask for collateral security to stand in support of the spouse’s guarantee. So, it is important to understand when there may be a presumption of undue influence in getting the guarantee and collateral security and what tests the court will use if it is raised as a defence on the guarantee.

I hope you have found this undue influence Brandon’s Blog interesting and helpful. The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID-19, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

undue influence
undue influence
Call a Trustee Now!