market value Archives - Ira SmithTrustee & Receiver Inc.

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. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

Defaulting on a mortgage introduction

I just finished reading a defaulting on a mortgage decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released on September 15, 2020. It had to do with a person who had filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The court case is about the debtor who could not afford to pay all the mortgages on her home. The home was sold on a conditional basis, and a dispute occurred between two potential purchasers. I describe below how the court dealt with the dispute.

That case highlighted for me three things:

what we advise everyone who comes to us for a no-cost initial consultation who cannot afford to keep paying a loan registered against an asset, normally a vehicle or house;
how sometimes a strategic default on a mortgage or vehicle loan can help someone in dealing with all of their debts when they are about to file either a proposal or for bankruptcy; and
the appropriate manner (in my view) the court decided to resolve the dispute between the two potential purchasers.

Defaulting on a mortgage: What we advise debtors

Whenever someone comes to us for a no-cost consultation, we first get financial information from them. We want to understand the nature of their assets and liabilities and their household income and expenses. Through our analysis and discussion, we determine if the person can afford to keep paying that loan or mortgage. We also ask them, if appropriate, are they happy with the asset if it seems that they are paying too much based on the level of secured debt and the market value of the asset.

If the person says they would love to get rid of the asset, that they have no or little equity in, then we look at the impact of using defaulting on a mortgage as a strategic default so that any shortfall experienced by the lender will be an ordinary unsecured debt which can be discharged through either a proposal or bankruptcy.

Obviously, the person has to have a realistic option to replace that asset or have an alternate plan:

Can they lease a different vehicle at a lesser cost before filing which they can afford and therefore will not default on?
Is public transit a realistic option as opposed to having their own vehicle for the time being?
Is there a relative who will co-sign for them so that they can lease or buy a more reasonable cost vehicle?
Can they rent somewhere that they can afford for much less than what they have been paying on their home and then look at buying something after they are through their debt restructuring when they are back on their feet?

As I said, we do this all the time when working with people to look at all of their options for financial restructuring. We especially look at in the case of a home, does defaulting on a mortgage make financial sense?

Defaulting on a mortgage: What is a strategic default?

When the market value of your home is less than the amount owed on the mortgage, that mortgage debt is underwater. To put it simply, an underwater home mortgage loan has a higher remaining principal balance than the value of the house.

Homeowners with little or negative home equity can find themselves in this situation when housing prices fall, even if they are current on all their payments. It’s also described as being “upside-down” or having “negative equity” in the residence.

When it doesn’t make sense to keep using your cash to stay current on that underwater mortgage, rather than using that money for other necessary expenses, defaulting on a mortgage as a strategic default may be your only option. After establishing that you can’t see your property rising in value in a reasonable period to restore some of your equity, you may plan to just stop making mortgage repayments. You’ll default and eventually, the lender will enforce on its mortgage, take over the property and sell it.

Even if you have equity in the home, but you can no longer afford to keep up the payments, you may find that putting your home up for sale is your best option. Again, you need to have a realistic plan in place on where you will live once your home sells. Depending on the situation, you might decide to also create a strategic default by defaulting on a mortgage at the same time you list your home for sale. Once sold, the net proceeds of the sale, representing the equity in the home, can be used to help fund the proposal.

During the financial crisis in the United States, a strategic default on underwater homes by defaulting on a mortgage became progressively typical. Such home loans came to a head at 26 percent of all mortgaged homes in 2009. Many house owners did the math and made the agonizing however rational decision to leave the home and let the lender deal with the property and its underwater mortgage.

As I explain in the next section, in most cases, you can just walk away from such a loan in the United States. Unfortunately, it is not so easy for Canadians to walk away from their homes and defaulting on a mortgage. But there is one way to do it in Ontario.

Defaulting on a mortgage: Walking away from a mortgage in Canada is not simple

In the United States, it is normal for a mortgage to be “non-recourse“. What this means is that the lender can only look to the value of the property it has mortgage security against to repay the mortgage loan. If the lender suffers a shortfall, unless there is a separate guarantee given, the lender cannot sue the mortgagor, the borrower, for any shortfall. So if you have negative equity, defaulting on a mortgage may be the right decision for such a US resident.

In Canada, it is normal for a mortgage to be “full recourse“. This means that if the lender suffers a shortfall on the mortgage debt, the terms of the mortgage loan automatically allows the mortgagee, the lender, to go to court and get a judgment against the borrower for the amount of the shortfall. So defaulting on a mortgage needs to be done in conjunction with a plan to deal with the shortfall debt.

For this reason, walking away from a mortgage in Canada is not simple. However, there is one way to do it. Once the shortfall is known and, either before or right after the lender gets a judgment, the debtor can file a proposal under the BIA to restructure all their unsecured debt. If that is not practical, then bankruptcy is the other option.

Now the shortfall is caught in the insolvency proceeding. The filing invokes an automatic stay of proceedings so that the lender cannot take action to try to execute against any of the assets or income of the debtor who has filed. The debt is caught in the insolvency proceeding and will be dealt with in that forum.

Defaulting on a mortgage: The first sale

The court case deals with a woman in Ontario who had begun a proposal process under the BIA. The debtor owned (at least) two residential properties. The property in question had 4 mortgages registered against it. The other property had multiple mortgages against it, including a mortgage as additional security for the 4th mortgage loan against the property in question. To make matters worse, there was also a lien registered against the same residential property in favour of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in the amount of $308,258.

The 4th mortgage was totally underwater. The debtor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale. The sale of the home would result in a shortfall of over $700,000. It would not provide any funds for the 4th mortgage. It would only partially repay the 3rd mortgage. So, one of the conditions of sale was that the vendor would either get a discharge of all of the mortgages or a court order vesting title in the home to the purchaser clear of all mortgages and other registrations against the title. The 4th mortgagee’s charge against the other home, which was also in 4th position, was also totally underwater.

As part of the proposal proceedings, the debtor brought a motion to the court to approve the sale (supported by appraisals) and get the vesting order to vest title clear of all registrations against the title. The debtor was not only going to be defaulting on a mortgage but on at least 2 of them!

Defaulting on a mortgage: The 4th mortgagee opposes the sale approval motion

The 4^th mortgagee appeared at the motion with her lawyer to get an adjournment in order to oppose the authorization and vesting order and enable her to acquire the home on the same terms but also for even more money. This would enable the 4^th mortgagee to possibly recover something on her outstanding mortgage loan at a later date.

The purchaser or the purchaser’s lawyer was not told in advance that there was going to be an opposition to the application. Therefore, the purchaser’s lawyer did not attend the hearing.

At the hearing, the court authorized the sale and vesting order yet suspended its issuance for 9 days to allow the 4^th mortgagee the chance to make an offer. She did, on the very same terms yet $5,000 greater than the approved offer. She also had the deposit funds put into her lawyer’s trust account. She then made a motion for the approval of her offer and vesting order. Not surprisingly, and as to be expected, the first purchaser objected to her motion.

Defaulting on a mortgage: What the court decided

The 4^th mortgagee’s lawyer argued that the first purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale is nullified since there was neither discharges provided nor a binding court order vesting title free and clear from all mortgages and the CRA registration by the closing date. Therefore, it cannot now come to court and try to extend the closing of a deal that is already dead.

Legal counsel for the first purchaser argued that if the court approves the 4^th mortgagee as the buyer, the sales procedure will be unfair. The first purchaser was not notified that there would be any type of objection to its motion for the approval and vesting order of its deal. Although the first purchaser can be criticized for not keeping up with what was happening both before and on the date of its court motion, it is still a good-faith buyer who took part in a fair sales process. The 4^th mortgagee had every right to bid on the subject property when it was initially listed and did not do so.

The court decided that ultimately, this situation boils down to the process being fair and seen as being fair. So given all of this, the court decided:

All previous agreements of purchase and sale for the subject property are terminated.
A new sales process will be carried out where any of the interested parties, being the first purchaser and the 4^th mortgagee, can send their best offers to the Trustee, on a confidential basis.
The offers are to be submitted and evaluated by the Trustee by September 18, 2020, with the closing of September 25, 2020.
In the event, the winning bid is not able to close on September 25, 2020, the other party may purchase the property.
If court approval of the successful offer and a vesting order is needed, a draft order may be provided to the court.
The proceeds of the sale, presumably net of the realtor commission, the vendor’s real estate legal fees, and any HST that may be applicable on the sale, are to be paid into court in order to figure out the proper amount and priority of the charges against the property.

As neither side was totally successful, the court did not award costs to any party. This seems to be the fairest outcome to all concerned.

Defaulting on a mortgage: A proposal is your best option

So as you can see, it is possible to use the proposal process under the BIA either to sell a home you can no longer afford to keep which has equity. The net sales proceeds can be used to partially fund the proposal. A proposal under the BIA is the only government-approved debt settlement plan.

Alternatively, you can use the proposal process to sell the home where you are defaulting on a mortgage where there are one or more mortgages underwater. The proposal process will compromise the resulting ordinary unsecured debt arising from the shortfall claim of underwater mortgage lenders. An application can be made to the court for an order approving the sales process, the sale, and obtaining a vesting order to complete the sale.

We have helped many people and companies do exactly that when defaulting on a mortgage.

Defaulting on a mortgage summary

I hope you have enjoyed this defaulting on a mortgage Brandon’s Blog. Hopefully, you have better insight now into the fact that there is a way to get out of a secured loan, especially a mortgage. It will require an insolvency proceeding to settle all your debts, including any shortfall on the sale of the secured asset.

Do you have too much debt? Are you in need of financial restructuring? 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. The way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan, we know that we can help you.

We know that people facing financial problems need realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.
Call us now for a free consultation.

We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

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. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: Introduction

I want to describe to you a very interesting case that was recently decided in the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Randen v. HPCB-Online Ltd., 2018 BCCA 123 (CanLII). The bankrupt’s creditors applied to have the transactions reviewed under section I00 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”). One of the areas of contention was that the judge in the lower court found he could not rely on the bankruptcy trustee’s opinion of value in the circumstances.

The applicants, Shawn and Edvige Cody, were the principals of the bankrupt, Half Price Computer Books Ltd. (“Half Price”) and the applicant HPCB-Online Ltd. (“Online”). About ten days before Half Price was assigned into bankruptcy, Online bought roughly 10% of the book inventory of Half Price.

The application under s.100 was originally made by the bankruptcy trustee, and later transferred to creditors David Randen, The Innovative Alliance Inc., J.R. Trading Co. Inc. and Fairmount Books Inc. under section 38 of the BIA. The lower court judge found Online acquired property from Half Price at much less than reasonable market value. The lower court judge ordered Online and the Codys to pay back the difference which he established to be $287,000.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: Section 100

Section 100 of the BIA. The section was repealed in 2009, but applies on transactions before then. The main purpose of that section was for reversing the effects of non-arm’s length transactions that reduced value from the estate of a bankrupt person or company.

Until 2009, s. 100 of the BIA provided:

“100 (1) Where a bankrupt sold, purchased, leased, hired, supplied or received property or services in a reviewable transaction within the period beginning on the day that is one year before the date of the bankruptcy event and ending on the date of the bankruptcy, both dates included, the court may, on the application of the trustee, inquire into whether the bankrupt gave or received, as the case may be, fair market value in consideration for the property or services concerned in the transaction.

(2) Where the court in proceedings under this section finds that the consideration given or received by the bankrupt in the reviewable transaction was conspicuously greater or less than the fair market value of the property or services concerned in the transaction, the court may give judgment to the trustee against the other party to the transaction, against any other person being privy to the transaction with the bankrupt or against all those persons for the difference between the actual consideration given or received by the bankrupt and the fair market value, as determined by the court, of the property or services concerned in the transaction.”

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The questionable transaction

The brand-new company Online bought roughly 10% of Half Price’s stock, or 44,000 books. These books were clearly selected by Mr. Cody as the best-selling. Online paid $21,964.50 for these books, about $0.50 CDN for each publication. The books and records of Half Price, including an e-commerce website which Half Price created at its expense and was the property of Half Price, were copied and used by Online to aid in the sale of these publications at the instructions of Mr. Cody.

The Half Price sorting software and mailing software program that was later used to retail these books by Online, which software was the property of Half Price, was duplicated and taken or transferred to Online. Additionally, there was a claim that the goodwill of Half Price was made use by Online. There was no evidence that Online paid anything for the use of the software and goodwill. bankruptcy and insolvency act 1

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The lower court’s first problem

The lower court found that Online paid conspicuously much less compared to fair market value. It must pay to the bankruptcy Estate for the benefit of the creditors which he determined to be $287,000. The lower court judge noted that this was not a case in which the trustee was driving the application. The trustee assigned the action to specific creditors.

Normally, the bankruptcy trustee would have to submit evidence to the court in a section 100 application as to the value of the property in question. Since the trustee had assigned its interest to specific creditors, there was no report from the trustee. The creditors said the value of the joint assets is close to $1.07 million. The lower court had to look at the trustee’s actions in determining what the trustee must have thought the value was.

The lower court acknowledged the need in s. 100 to accept the trustee’s viewpoint about the value, unless other values are confirmed. The court however discovered it could not depend on that viewpoint in this case. The first problem was that they were standing in the place of the trustee. The trustee had determined that the software and other assets was of no value. In addition, the trustee did not figure out that there was any kind of goodwill value to this.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The lower court’s second problem

The second problem was that Half Price could have moved the best publications to Online at the direction of the Codys. The remaining books, being 90% of the book inventory, sold for around the same value as the 10% of publications. Though this is not entirely determinative of worth, it shows that the inventory, software and goodwill was not as valuable as these creditors represented to the lower court..

The BIA required the lower court judge to accept the trustee‘s viewpoint as to the value, or in this situation the point of view of those creditors, unless other values can be confirmed. The lower court considered the trustee’s activity when the bankruptcy first happened, that those assets had no value. The lower court found that it could not rely on any trustee viewpoint on worth.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a trustee in bankruptcy is an officer of the court and has an obligation to offer all relevant facts to the court in a dispassionate, non-adversarial fashion. It went on to say that the creditors do not have the same responsibilities. They got the right to pursue the proceedings in their very own passionate way. The Court of Appeal went on to say that it was open to the court to decline the trustee’s opinion on the evaluation of a fair market price.

The Court of Appeal finally concluded that although the Court did not have to accept the trustee’s opinion of value, there was insufficient evidence for the lower court judge to place a value. So the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial in the lower court. Now both the creditors, and certainly the trustee, will have to submit evidence about what the fair market value was, in their respective opinion. That way, the lower court will be able to rely on experts, an officer of the court and real evidence.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The licensed insolvency trustee

Licensed insolvency trustee is the relatively new name for a bankruptcy trustee. Is your company experiencing financial problems? Are you, or somebody you care about, experiencing personal financial problems?

Bankruptcy is the last thing we try to do for a company or person in financial difficulty. If caught early enough, we can get involved in a turnaround situation for your company to keep jobs and value. We also carry out debt settlement plans for people.

If you’ve personally fallen victim to money mistakes and are in pain and stressed out, it’s time for professional help now too.

The Ira Smith Team knows that you are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being. The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points.

Contact the Ira Smith Team today. We know how to solve both corporate and personal financial challenges, remove your pain and put things back on a healthy path. Contact us today for your free consultation so that we can save your company, Starting Over Starting Now.

bankruptcy and insolvency act