House Bill 2590 (Continuation of Oil and Gas Leases After Foreclosure) Would Reward Wrongful Conduct

Virtually all mortgage loans are drafted to encumber the mineral estate with a lien. Lender consent is generally expressly required to lease the minerals. Despite this requirement, many operators, particularly in urban areas have become lax about obtaining subordination agreements.

To solve the problem, Bill HB 2590 was promoted, which passed the Texas House and Senate in the Eighty-Third (83rd) regular legislative session. Fortunately, the Governor vetoed it. The bill would have forced the foreclosure-sale purchaser into a lease that neither he nor his precedessor-in-interest negotiated. Instead the buyer would be stuck with whatever lease the debtor negotiated in blatant violation of the lender-consent provisions of the mortgage.

This bill’s constitutionality is doubtful. The foreclosure-sale buyer acquires the interest encumbered by the lien, not whatever interest is held by the debtor. The lender never agreed to the lease terms, then when the buyer buys the lender’s interest, this bill would force the buyer into an agreement that he never made, that the owner of the interest purchased never agreed to, and that violated the mortgage contract, probably tortiously.

This bill should not be resubmitted to the Governor because it would interfere with private property rights by forcing landowners to accept terms that no one agreed to except the debtor, who violated the mortgage terms by leasing without obtaining lender consent and who only owned part of the interest sold, and the operator who failed to obtain a subordination agreement with full knowledge of its necessity.

When the mineral lessee executed the lease, the lessee knew that the lease violated the terms of the recorded instruments. The lessee also knew about the risk of foreclosure yet made the voluntary business decision to assume that risk. Now that the risk has materialized, the lessee should not be able to shirk its obligations by pushing that risk off onto the victims. This bill would reward lessees for ignoring mortgage terms, tortiously interfering with the mortgage, willfully disregard the obligation to obtain a subordination agreement, and then be rewarded for the foregoing conduct.

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/18669/

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB02590S.htm

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2590/id/774499

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only. Do not rely on any part of this blog as legal advice. Instead, seek out the advice of a licensed attorney. Also, this information may be out-of-date.

When the Statute of Limitations Begins to Run on Installment Loans

The short answer is that with installment loans, the statute of limitations begins to accrue on each installment as it comes due. Once the payments are accelerated, then the statute begins to run on the balance of the debt.

If the loan is on real estate, however, then the limitations period does not begin to run until the “maturity date of the last note, obligation, or installment.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.035(e). Section 16.035(e), however, does not apply when the note has been accelerated. See Hammann v. H.J. McMullen & Co., 122 Tex. 476, 62 S.W.2d 59, 61 (1933); Burney v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., 244 S.W.3d 900, 903–904 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

In Texas, “‘A cause of action accrues when an installment is due and unpaid.’ See Gabriel v. Alhabbal, 618 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Goldfield v. Kassoff, 470 S.W.2d 216, 217 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1971, no writ).” Stille v. Colborn, 740 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1987). The balance of a loan becomes due and unpaid upon acceleration. Id.

If the loan is for real estate, then the statute of limitations is four years and special provisions apply. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.035. For example, “A sale of real property under a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust that creates a real property lien must be made not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.” Id. § 16.035(b).

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only. Do not rely on any part of this blog as legal advice. Instead, seek out the advice of a licensed attorney. Also, this information may be out-of-date.

Contracts for Deed: Do the Volume-Dealer Penalties of Section 5.077(d) Have an “Anchoring” Requirement?

One bankruptcy court says yes. Here is an argument for the answer being no.

Under Section 5.077(d), the volume-dealer penalties apply to “A seller who conducts two or more transactions in a 12-month period under this section . . . .” One bankruptcy court has interpreted this provision as meaning that the volume-dealer penalties apply only when a second Contract for Deed has been executed within twelve-months of the Contract for Deed that is the subject of the case currently before the court. Dodson v. Perkins (In re Dodson), 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 4647, 20; 2008 WL 4621293 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2008).

While the Dodson court concluded that Section 5.077(d) must be “anchored” to the signing of the contract being enforced, the court admitted that that court was unable to locate “any case law or other authority, nor any legislative history that would clarify the meaning of the 2005 Statute in this respect.” Id. The statute clearly states that any seller who conducts two transactions in any twelve-month period falls under Section 5.077(d). Texas Courts should not add an additional “anchoring” requirement to an otherwise straightforward statute. Furthermore, the “anchoring” requirement does not make the statute “easier to comply with and to enforce.” Id. at 22. Instead, an “anchoring” requirement would make relief under Section 5.077(d) nearly impossible to prove for many plaintiffs without expending exorbitant time and effort on investigations outside of the discovery process in order to corroborate defendants’ production or lack thereof. If the legislature wanted to add an “anchoring” requirement, then such a requirement would have been easy enough to draft. The legislature did not, however, add an “anchoring” requirement and such a requirement should not be imposed judicially.

Before the statute was amended in 2005, the $250 penalty applied to all Contract for Deed sellers. Id. at 6. The new statute carves out a very narrow niche of sellers—sellers who never conduct more than one qualifying transaction within one year—to be exempted from the harsh penalties and assessed only a nominal penalty of $100 per year. Consequently, an unsophisticated individual who owner-carries financing on his own home to a buyer, generally, will not accidentally lose that home to the harsher penalties. Meanwhile, volume dealers who own multiple properties and sell all or many of the properties by Contracts for Deed will incur the full, normal penalties that were applicable to all Contract for Deed sellers before the 2005 amendments carved out a narrow niche of sellers to exempt under Section 5.077(c). See Tex. Prop. Code § 5.077; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 978 (H.B. 1823), § 5, effective September 1, 2005.

For most plaintiffs, proving the statutory requirement of two contracts within twelve months creates enough of a hurdle without adding an even more difficult “anchoring” element.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only. Do not rely on any part of this blog as legal advice. Instead, seek out the advice of a licensed attorney. Also, this information may be out-of-date.