Rockhill v. United States
288 Md. 237, 418 A.2d 197, 1980 Md. LEXIS 202 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent an express contractual agreement, fraud, or collusion, a construction lender who obtains lien priority through an unconditional subordination agreement does not owe a duty to the subordinating lienor to ensure that the borrower uses the loan proceeds for the intended purpose of construction or repair.
Facts:
- In November 1975, Eunice L. Rockhill and The Flag Harbor Corporation (Sellers) sold two adjoining properties, which included a small marina, to Neal and Mary Beachem (Borrowers).
- As part of the sale, Sellers took back deeds of trust to secure the unpaid purchase price, giving them a first-priority lien on the properties.
- In January 1977, the marina suffered extensive damage from ice.
- Borrowers applied for and were granted a disaster loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA) for the purpose of making repairs.
- SBA required its loan to have first-lien priority as a condition of providing the funds.
- In November 1977, Sellers executed unconditional subordination agreements, making their purchase money deeds of trust junior to the lien securing the SBA loan.
- Sellers subordinated their liens in reliance on the fact that Borrowers would use the loan funds to repair and improve the properties, thereby increasing their value.
- Borrowers allegedly diverted all the loan funds for their own benefit instead of using them for repairs, and subsequently defaulted on the SBA loan.
Procedural Posture:
- The Small Business Administration (SBA) filed a petition in federal court to foreclose on the properties after the Borrowers defaulted.
- Sellers intervened in the foreclosure action as defendants.
- Sellers filed a counterclaim against the SBA, seeking a declaration that their purchase money deeds of trust should be restored to first lien status.
- The SBA filed a motion to dismiss Sellers' counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- In response to the motion to dismiss, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a question of law to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a construction lender who obtains lien priority through an unconditional subordination agreement owe an implied duty to the subordinating lienor to ensure the loan proceeds are actually used for the intended construction or repairs?
Opinions:
Majority - Rodowsky, J.
No, a lender who obtains lien priority through an unconditional subordination agreement does not owe an implied duty to the subordinating party to supervise the application of loan proceeds. The general rule is that the risk of a borrower's diversion of funds is assumed by the subordinating lienor unless there is an express covenant from the lender to supervise the funds, or unless the lienor can demonstrate fraud or collusion between the lender and the borrower. The court reasoned that it is within the power of the subordinating party to negotiate for protective terms and refuse to subordinate if those terms are not met. To impose a duty where none is expressed in the contract would amount to judicially rewriting the agreement and would introduce an undesirable element of uncertainty into real estate transactions, undermining the stability of recorded lien priorities.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Maryland's adherence to the majority rule concerning lender liability in subordination contexts, emphasizing freedom of contract and the stability of real estate finance. It firmly places the burden on the subordinating party (typically a seller) to protect their interests through express contractual language rather than relying on courts to imply a duty upon the lender. The ruling provides significant protection and certainty for construction lenders, ensuring that their bargained-for first-lien priority will not be easily overturned by subsequent claims of misapplied funds. For future subordinating parties, this case serves as a clear warning to negotiate specific, protective conditions into any subordination agreement.
