Whitley v. Griffin

737 F. Supp. 345, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5665, 1990 WL 61870
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina
DecidedApril 13, 1990
DocketNo. 89-58-CIV-3
StatusPublished

This text of 737 F. Supp. 345 (Whitley v. Griffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Whitley v. Griffin, 737 F. Supp. 345, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5665, 1990 WL 61870 (E.D.N.C. 1990).

Opinion

ORDER

BRITT, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff John B. Whitley brought this declaratory judgment action in his capacity as trustee or substitute trustee (trustee) under various deeds of trust given on real property in Cumberland County, North Carolina. The complaint names two state defendants, the Clerk of Superior Court of Cumberland County and the State of North Carolina, and various federal defendants, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its Secretary, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), its Secretary, and the United States of America. Plaintiff instituted this action in Superior Court of Cumberland County, and the federal defendants removed the case to this court.

By his complaint, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure tax imposed by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-308(a)(l) is not collectible or payable when the ultimate purchaser of real property foreclosed and sold pursuant to a power of sale is an officer or agency of the United States. The federal defendants have moved for summary judgment contending the foreclosure tax is not collectible under these circumstances. The state defendants have moved for summary judgment contending the foreclosure tax is collectible. Following the hearing, the court has reviewed the materials before it and determines the state defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be allowed and the federal defendants’ motion should be denied.

I.

A.

In their brief, the HUD defendants have explained certain facts and procedures relative to the HUD loan program which evidence their contention that HUD exercises substantial control over the foreclosure sales. The National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of HUD to administer a federal mortgage insurance program which allows Americans who might otherwise be ineligible to obtain financing for their homes. The federal mortgage insurance program implements this goal of providing housing by providing incentive to private lenders to finance residential housing. HUD protects the lender against loss; if the lender must foreclose upon the property, HUD pays the lender the loan’s unpaid principal as well as two-thirds of the lender’s foreclosure costs and expenses.

Participation in the federal mortgage insurance program is restricted to lenders and borrowers who satisfy certain statutory and regulatory requirements. Generally, lenders must demonstrate financial soundness and agree to submit to HUD financial audits upon request. The lender [347]*347must also agree to follow certain HUD regulations when issuing and servicing HUD-insured mortgages.

HUD regulates both the terms of the loan transaction and the manner by which lenders service the loan. The lender must use the HUD-prescribed note and deed of trust. The deed of trust contains a power of sale provision authorizing the appointed trustee to foreclose on the property at public auction upon the borrower’s default. Upon the borrower’s default, the lender must commence foreclosure proceedings within one year from the date of default provided the borrower is at least three months delinquent in its monthly payments.

When the lender begins foreclosure proceedings, it must notify HUD. HUD has the property appraised and determines the Commissioner’s Adjusted Fair Market Value (CAFMV) of the property. HUD then determines whether this amount should be the bid price at the foreclosure sale and provides the lender with this price prior to the sale. To be entitled to payment of its mortgage insurance claim, the lender must bid this value at the foreclosure sale.

The lender is authorized to arrange for the deed to the property to be made directly to HUD. The lender complies with this regulation by assigning to HUD its bid at the foreclosure sale.

B.

The VA defendants have also summarized in their brief the framework for the VA loan program in support of their contention that VA exercises substantial control over the foreclosure sales. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is authorized to implement a home mortgage loan guaranty program to assist eligible veterans in owning homes. By guaranteeing that a major portion of the loan will be paid, the VA program makes it possible for veterans who might not otherwise qualify to obtain mortgage loans.

By protecting the lender against loss, the VA mortgage loan guaranty program provides an incentive to private lenders to finance residential housing for veterans. Participating lenders must follow VA regulations and policies in processing the loan applications and in treating defaults and claims arising through the loans.

Upon the borrower’s delinquency for at least 60 days, the lender must notify the VA of default, and the VA has the property appraised. The VA determines the net value of the property and the amount of the total indebtedness under the loan. Then, the VA notifies the lender of the loan value and the minimum amount to be credited to the indebtedness following the sale.

If the foreclosure sale price does not cover certain amounts, the lender may convey the property to the Secretary of VA for payment. This conveyance is accomplished by the lender assigning its interest in the successful foreclosure sale bid to the Secretary of VA and instructing the trustee to convey the property to the Secretary of VA.

C.

In United States of America v. State of North Carolina, No. 83-1576-CIV-5, the United States of America, plaintiff, and the State of North Carolina, defendant, entered into a Consent Permanent Injunction which provided in part:

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. That a permanent injunction is entered enjoining the defendant, State of North Carolina, its agencies and instru-mentalities, from assessing and collecting against plaintiff, its agencies and its trustees, the additional tax equal to “thirty cents ... per one hundred dollars ($100.00), or major fraction thereof, of the final sale price” of property sold under foreclosure by plaintiff under its power of sale clauses in its deeds of trust, as required by the newly-enacted provision of the 1983 Session Law which amends the North Carolina General Statutes, Section 7A-308(a)(l) where the ultimate burden of paying the tax falls upon the United States of America.
2. That a permanent jinjunction is entered enjoining the defendant, its [348]*348agencies and instrumentalities, from assessing and collecting the aforesaid tax against plaintiff and its agencies where the ultimate burden of paying the tax falls upon the United States of America and remain in full force and effect unless and until the North Carolina General Assembly eliminates the application of the 1983 Session Law amending North Carolina General Statute § 7A-308(a) as it applies to the United States of America, its agencies and trustees.

D.

The deeds of trust for which plaintiff is trustee are given as security for loans made and held by private lenders and secured or guaranteed by agencies of the United States, HUD and VA. Plaintiff foreclosed upon these properties by exercising the private power of sale provisions contained in the agency-prescribed deeds of trust. The power of sale provision allowed the trustee, upon the borrower’s default, to sell the property at public auction to the highest bidder for cash.

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

Related

M'culloch v. State of Maryland
17 U.S. 316 (Supreme Court, 1819)
Alabama v. King & Boozer
314 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1941)
United States v. City of Detroit
355 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 1958)
United States v. County of Fresno
429 U.S. 452 (Supreme Court, 1977)
South Carolina v. Baker
485 U.S. 505 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Merritt v. Ridge
372 S.E.2d 559 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
737 F. Supp. 345, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5665, 1990 WL 61870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitley-v-griffin-nced-1990.