Sovereign Bank v. Gillis

• Decision Date: 03 July 2013
• Citation: 74 A.3d 1,432 N.J.Super. 36
• Parties: SOVEREIGN BANK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Joseph M. GILLIS; Mrs. Joseph M. Gillis, his wife; Eulalia Gillis; Mr. Gillis, husband of Eulalia Gillis; First Bankamericano; and State of New Jersey, Defendants, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, WaMu 2005–AR9, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

432 N.J.Super. 36

74 A.3d 1

SOVEREIGN BANK, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v. Joseph M. GILLIS; Mrs. Joseph M. Gillis, his wife; Eulalia Gillis; Mr. Gillis, husband of Eulalia Gillis; First Bankamericano; and State of New Jersey, Defendants,andDeutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, WaMu 2005–AR9, Defendant–Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 15, 2013.

Decided July 3, 2013.

Robert L. Grundlock, Jr., Princeton, argued the cause for appellant (Rubin Ehrlich & Buckley, PC, attorneys; Mr. Grundlock, on the briefs).

Vladimir Palma, Mt. Laurel, argued the cause for respondent (Phelan Hallinan & Diamond, attorneys; Mr. Palma, on the brief).

Before Judges PARRILLO, SABATINO and MAVEN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SABATINO, J.A.D.

This appeal concerns whether a refinancing lender that discharges its own previous mortgage and issues another mortgage loan for a higher amount, and which simultaneously pays off the balance owed on a junior lienor's line of credit without having it closed, can rely upon equitable principles to maintain its priority over that junior lienor. This question of priority arises here in a context in which the borrowers, after obtaining the refinancing, drew additional funds on the line of credit and then defaulted on both the refinanced mortgage loan and the line of credit.

Applying principles of replacement and modification recognized in the Restatement (Third) of Property—Mortgages (1997) (“the Third Restatement ”), we reverse the trial court's decision allowing the junior lienor that extended the line of credit to vault over the priority of the refinancing mortgage lender. We consequently direct the trial court, on remand, to determine the proper extent of the refinancing lender's priority, in an amount that avoids material prejudice to the junior lienor.

I.

The essential facts are substantially undisputed. On May 28, 1998, defendants Joseph and Eulalia Gillis (“the Gillises”) ¹ borrowed $650,000 from Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WaMu”) to finance the purchase of a residential property in Warren Township. The mortgage loan had a thirty-year term through June 2028, with an adjustable interest rate initially set at 6.625%. WaMu secured the May 1998 loan with a purchase-money mortgage, which was recorded in the first position of priority.

Subsequently, in December 1998, the Gillises obtained a home-equity line of credit from Broad National Bank, secured by a mortgage recorded in the second position.² In October 2001, the Gillises obtained additional funding from Crown Bank, NA (“Crown”), secured by a mortgage recorded in the third position.

On March 18, 2003, the Gillises obtained yet another home-equity line of credit, this time from Independence Community Bank (“Independence”), for the sum of $500,000, also secured by a mortgage. As a condition of closing, Independence required that the proceeds from the funds borrowed on the line of credit be used to discharge the two preexisting debts that the Gillises held with Broad and Crown. The amount remaining after the discharge (i.e., $58,252.58) was applied to pay down a portion of the outstanding purchase-money mortgage with WaMu, which at the time had a principal balance of about $534,000. Both the Broad and Crown mortgages were discharged shortly thereafter the payoff. Consequently, the March 18, 2003 line of credit with Independence stood in a second lien position behind the May 1998 WaMu purchase-money mortgage.

In January 2005, the Gillises sought to refinance their existing mortgage loans. To that end, they borrowed $1.19 million from WaMu, secured by another mortgage on their property (“the WaMu refinanced mortgage”) dated January 13, 2005. The WaMu refinanced mortgage loan had a thirty-year term through February 2035, with an adjustable interest rate initially set at 4.027%. ³ The WaMu refinanced mortgage was recorded on January 31, 2005. The principal amount from this refinancing was used to pay off the Gillises' remaining debt of $482,023.67 that the original May 1998 WaMu purchase-money mortgage secured, as well as the remaining debt of $499,921.93 that the Independence line of credit mortgage secured.

The parties agree the $499,921.93 advanced to Independence stemming from the January 13, 2005 WaMu refinancing paid off the Independence debt in full. Independence memorialized the receipt of this sum in a payoff letter that it issued to WaMu, listing an effective date of January 14, 2005. Significantly, at the bottom of the payoff letter, Independence noted in bold and underlined type, “We require all customers to sign an authorization to close a line of credit.”

For reasons that are not clear from the appellate record, WaMu failed to obtain written authorization from the Gillises to close out the Independence line of credit. Consequently, the mortgage on that line of credit was not discharged of record, despite an alleged intent to do so. The WaMu refinanced mortgage was instead recorded behind the Independence line of credit mortgage, which remained a lien of record even though the balance on that loan existing at the time of the January 2005 refinancing had been paid off by WaMu in full.

Thereafter, the Gillises continued to borrow funds under the Independence line of credit, starting on February 14, 2005 and continuing at least until August 15, 2006. Ultimately, however, the Gillises defaulted on both the WaMu refinanced mortgage loan and the Independence line of credit.

Pursuant to a January 2010 assignment, appellant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) began holding the WaMu refinanced mortgage as the Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, WAMU 2005–AR9. In addition, the mortgage on the Independence line of credit was assigned to respondent Sovereign Bank (“Sovereign”).⁴

In January 2010, Deutsche filed a foreclosure action in the Chancery Division against the Gillises on the defaulted WaMu refinanced mortgage.⁵ Sovereign likewise filed a foreclosure action in the Chancery Division in October 2010 on the defaulted line of credit. The trial court jointly managed the two foreclosure actions, but did not consolidate them. Consequently, the parties litigated their dispute under the caption of Sovereign Bank's foreclosure action.

Deutsche moved for summary judgment against Sovereign, arguing that, based upon equitable principles, the WaMu refinanced mortgage loan had priority over the Independence line of credit. Deutsche argued that the WaMu refinanced mortgage should be granted priority over the Independence line of credit mortgage under the doctrine of equitable subrogation because the debt on the line of credit existing at the time of the refinancing had been paid in full and was, in any case, intended to be discharged.

Sovereign cross-moved for summary judgment against Deutsche, conversely maintaining that the Independence line of credit, which had been recorded first, had priority over the WaMu refinanced mortgage loan. Among other things, Sovereign argued that the doctrine of equitable subrogation cannot be invoked to give the WaMu refinanced mortgage priority over the Independence line of credit because WaMu had actual knowledge of that pre-existing and recorded line of credit when the refinancing occurred. Sovereign further argued that because the line of credit had not been properly closed and that because the Gillises had subsequently withdrawn additional funds on it, the Independence mortgage should instead maintain priority over the WaMu refinanced mortgage.

Upon considering the lenders' competing arguments, the trial court granted summary judgment to Sovereign and held that the Independence line of credit has priority over the WaMu refinanced mortgage. In its written decision, the court applied case law instructing that a new mortgagee is not entitled to equitable subrogation if it “possesses actual knowledge of the prior encumbrance.” First Union Nat'l Bank v. Nelkin, 354 N.J.Super. 557, 565–66, 808 A.2d 856 (App.Div.2002). BecauseWaMu obviously had such actual knowledge of the Independence line of credit when it paid off the balance on that loan in January 2005 as part of the refinancing, the court concluded that WaMu could not equitably maintain any priority over the Independence loan.

On appeal, Deutsche urges that we reverse the trial court and grant it an equitable remedy of priority, despite WaMu's admitted awareness of the Independence loan at the time of the refinancing. Deutsche contends that the “actual knowledge” exception recognized in Nelkin and other case law, at least as applied in these circumstances, unfairly bestows a windfall upon the original junior lienor, Independence, and its assignee, Sovereign. Deutsche argues that the actual knowledge principle wrongfully penalizes a refinancing lender such as WaMu that knowingly pays down a junior debt in full.

As part of its arguments, Deutsche relies upon principles of equity set forth in the Third Restatement, including comment (e) to Section 7.6, which states that “where a mortgage loan is refinanced by the same lender, a mortgage securing the new loan may be given the priority of the original mortgage under the principles of replacement and modification of mortgages.” Because we endorse that approach, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand for further proceedings to determine the appropriate extent of appellant's priority.

II.

Mortgage priorities are generally governed in New Jersey by our recording statutes. N.J.S.A. 46:26A–1 to –12. New Jersey is a “race-notice” jurisdiction, meaning that when two parties are competing for priority over each other's mortgage, the party that recorded its mortgage first will normally prevail, so long as that party did not have actual knowledge of the other party's previously-acquired interest. Cox v. RKA Corp., 164 N.J. 487, 496, 753 A.2d 1112 (2000) (citing Palamarg Realty...