In re Kaczmarczyk

55 B.R. 485, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5006
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 7, 1985
DocketBankruptcy No. B-85-991 PHX LO
StatusPublished

This text of 55 B.R. 485 (In re Kaczmarczyk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Kaczmarczyk, 55 B.R. 485, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5006 (Ark. 1985).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

LAWRENCE OLLASON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came to be heard on a motion filed by the plaintiffs, Paul and Leanna Johnson, for a court order requiring the Debtors and defendants in this matter, Marian and Christine Kaczmarczyk, to abandon real property. In response, the Debtors filed a motion requesting that the court deny the plaintiffs’ motion.

From the records in this case, representations of counsel and concessions made in the Memoranda of Law filed, the facts are as follows:

FACTS

The Debtors, as purchasers, executed a Promissory Note for the sale of real property herein with the plaintiffs on April 2, 1979. A Deed of Trust was recorded on the property in question with the plaintiffs as the beneficiaries. The Debtors ceased making payments on the note in December of 1984. Pursuant to the Deed of Trust and state law, the plaintiffs and the account servicing agent, Pioneer Trust, mailed a Notice of Election to Forfeit to the Debtors on or about March 21, 1985. This notice set the forfeiture date for April 10, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. The Debtors filed their Chapter 11 petition on April 11, 1985.

The record before the court indicates that the Notice of Election to Forfeit was recorded in the Maricopa County records on March 21, 1985. However, plaintiffs admit in their moving papers that the Affidavit of Completion of Forfeiture was not recorded before the Debtors filed their bankruptcy petition and has not been recorded to date. The record further indicates that the property in question is income producing property in the form of an apartment complex.

In support of their motion to abandon, plaintiffs argue that the Debtors’ failure to reinstate the contract before the forfeiture date, April 10, 1985, resulted in the Debtors’ loss of any legal or equitable interest in the property. The Debtors argue that the failure of the plaintiffs to file the Affidavit of Completion of Forfeiture resulted in the real property in question becoming property of the bankruptcy estate at the time the petition was filed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(1).

ANALYSIS

The question presented for decision is whether the filing of the bankruptcy petition before the Affidavit of Completion of Forfeiture has been recorded results in the real property becoming property of the bankruptcy estate.

In 1981, the Arizona legislature revised its statutes concerning the forfeiture and reinstatement of the purchaser’s interest under a real estate purchase contract. The former forfeiture and redemption statutes did not provide for a notice of forfeiture date after a grace period or for an affidavit of completion of forfeiture to be filed signifying that the forfeiture process has been completed. Former statutes A.R.S. 33-741 and 742 (1956) (Amended in 1981) simply provided that the purchaser loses his interest in the property at the end of the grace [487]*487period provided for in A.R.S. 33-741 (1956) (Amended in 1981).1

The Arizona statutes now provide for a three step process in the non-judicial forfeiture of a purchaser’s interest in a real estate purchase agreement. A.R.S. 33-742 (1981) contains the first step and reads in part under subsection A that:

“If a purchaser is in default by failing to pay monies due under the contract, a seller may, after expiration of the applicable period stated in subsection D of this section and after serving the notice of election to forfeit stated in Section 33-743, complete the forfeiture of the purchaser’s interest in the property in the manner provided by Section 33-744 or 33-745” .2

The second step is contained in A.R.S. 33-743 (1981). This statute provides that if the purchaser under the contract defaults on his payments in the manner required by A.R.S. 33-742(D) (1981), the seller and the account servicing agent may record a Notice of Election to Forfeit and set a forfeiture date at least twenty days after the date of mailing the notice to the purchasers and any lien holders.3

A.R.S. 33-745 (1981) discusses the final step in the non-judicial forfeiture process. Subsection A provides in part that:

“If an account servicing agent has been appointed to hold documents and collect monies due under the contract and the agent has recorded and served the notice of election to forfeit, as provided in Sec[488]*488tion 33-743, the seller and account servicing agent may complete the forfeiture of the interest of the purchaser and persons having an interest in or a lien or encumbrance on the property, the priority of which is subordinate to that of the seller, by recordation of an affidavit of completion of forfeiture with the county recorder in which the real property is located”.

Subsection B of A.R.S. 33-745 (1981) states that the recordation of an affidavit of completion of forfeiture terminates all the purchaser’s rights in the property and serves as conclusive evidence that all the statutory requirements regarding forfeiture have been met.4

The case law in Arizona is based on the former forfeiture statutes. These cases must therefore be distinguished from the present statutes.

The Arizona Supreme Court in Trevillian v. Lee, 111 Ariz. 229, 231, 527 P.2d 100, 102 (1974) stated that “the manner in which the sellers could enforce a forfeiture was governed by the terms of the contract and the statutory provisions”. In that case the buyer had 30 days pursuant to A.R.S. 33-741(A)(1) (1956) (Amended in 1981) after she had defaulted to bring her payments up to date otherwise forfeiture of her interest could be enforced. The seller completed the requirements for forfeiture under the contract and the court held that the forfeiture was complete even though the buyer had not recorded or delivered the quit claim deed deposited with the escrow agent.

The bankruptcy court in this district also had occasion to consider the former forfeiture statutes in Arizona. In re Simpson, 7 B.R. 41 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.1980). In Simpson the buyer defaulted on his payments and the seller first had to reinstate the “time is made the essence” clause in the contract. After the clause was reinstated, the 30 day grace period pursuant to A.R.S. 33-741(A)(1) (1956) (Amended in 1981) was commenced. The buyer failed to reinstate the contract during the grace period and the seller initiated the forfeiture procedures provided for in the contract. It is important to note that under this statute the buyer’s interest would be forfeited at the end of the grace period if there were no additional steps required for forfeiture in the contract. Trevillion v. Lee, supra.

The contract required that the seller send a declaration of forfeiture to the buyer which gave the buyer 10 days to pay all sums due under the contract. If the buyer fails to meet this requirement, the escrow agent may then file the affidavit of completion of forfeiture. In the Simpson case the seller sent the declaration of forfeiture notice to the buyer and the buyer failed to tender any sums due prior to the 10 day expiration period. However, before the escrow agent could file the affidavit of completion of forfeiture, the debtor filed his petition for bankruptcy.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Simpson v. Mayers (In Re Simpson)
7 B.R. 41 (D. Arizona, 1980)
Trevillian v. Lee
527 P.2d 100 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 B.R. 485, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kaczmarczyk-arb-1985.