Fresno Lawyer – Randolf Krbechek

Continuing his recent discussion of fault in contract law, Judge Posner explains that,

“The idea of ‘good faith’ is an example.  We generally want people to be honest and aboveboard in their dealings with others.  But there is no general duty of good faith in contract law.  If you offer a low price for some good to its owner, you are not obliged to tell him that you think the good is underpriced – that he does not realize its market value and you do.

“You are not required to be an altruist, to be candid, to be a good guy.  You are permitted to profit from asymmetry of information.  If you could not do that, the incentive to discover information about true values would be blunted.  It is an example of the traditional economic paradox that private vice can be public virtue.”

True, and eloquently stated.  The principle of capitalism is that a person should be able to profit from skill and knowledge.  Continuing his analysis, Judge Posner explains his view the duty of god faith in contract law, stating that,

“There is a legally enforceable contract duty of ‘good faith,’ but it is just a duty to avoid exploiting the temporary monopoly position that a contracting party will sometimes obtain during the course of performance.”

OK.  Good faith in contract law concerns good faith in performance, not to good faith in contract formation (although he recognizes that some standard of decency is necessary to police unreasonably sharp deals).

Thus, “More often than not the parties to a contract do not perform their contractual duties simultaneously, and so one party may unavoidably deliver himself into the power of the other party for a time during the performance of the contract.  [Take this example.]  A may agree to build a swimming pool for B, and B may agree to pay A upon completion.  Suppose that when A has finished, B refuses to pay the agreed-upon price because he knows that A is desperately short of cash and will agree to a reduction in the contract price, having no possible source of cash other than B.  A’s cash shortage, coupled with his having completed performance before B has begun and his having no alternative source of cash, gives B a monopoly position as A’s financier; monopoly is inefficient and so a modification of the contract to lower its price will not be enforced.”

Yes, but, isn’t this conduct bad faith in performance?  If so, should the law award extra-contractual damages for violation?  Judge Posner continues, citing from his opinion in Market Street Associates v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588 (7th Cir. 1991):

“In all these examples the duty of ‘good faith’ arises after the contract has been formed; that is why it is properly called the duty of good faith in performing a contract.  If I may be permitted to quote again from my opinion in the Frey case:

“Before the contract is signed, the parties confront each other with a natural wariness.  Neither expects the other to be particularly forthcoming, and therefore there is no deception when one is not.

“Afterwards the situation is different.  The parties are now in a cooperative relationship the costs of which will be considerably reduced by a measure of trust.  So each lowers his guard a bit, and now silence is more apt to be deceptive . . .

“As performance unfolds, circumstances change, often unforeseeably; die explicit terms of the contract become progressively less apt to the governance of the parties’ relationship; and the role of implied conditions and with it the scope and bite of the good-faith doctrine grows.”

We see the analysis heading toward the territory of the fiduciary, in which neither party may take action to deprive the other of the benefit of the bargain.  The question is, If the action by the contract-breaker is intentional, after the other party has become vulnerable, should the law respond more harshly?  Judge Posner says no – but on a societal level, why should this be the rule?

Richard A. Posner, “Let Us Never Blame a Contract Breaker,” in Michigan Law Review (June 2009), Vol. 107, No. 8, page 1349.

Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals contributed his thoughts at a symposium on the rationale for liability for breach of contract.  One of his points is a sound analytic distinction between tort liability and contract liability, a concept which is sadly muddled in California cases.

Writes Judge Posner, “Here is a simplified version.  A and B make a written contract.  Later A sues B claiming that during the negotiations B deliberately misrepresented the benefits that A would derive from the contract.  But A does not sue for breach of contract.  He can’t; the parol evidence rule would bar a claim that promises made during the negotiations but not repeated in the contract should be deemed contractually binding.”

That’s clear legal thinking.  There is no claim for breach of contract because the law of evidence excludes evidence of terms that contradict the terms of the contract.

Judge Posner continues.  “So A sues B in tort, charging fraud.  The parol evidence rule is not a rule of tort law.”

Right again.  Parol evidence knocks out the contract claim, but not the tort claim.

“B has a defense [to the fraud claim]: the written contract had included a clause stating that neither party was relying on any representations not embodied in the written contract.”

According to Judge Posner, “The ‘no reliance’ clause scotches A’s fraud suit because you cannot obtain damages for fraud unless you relied on the fraudulent representations, and A has disclaimed such reliance.  So although B is assumed to have acted wrongfully, A has no remedy either in contract or in tort.”

Well, maybe not so fast.  Isn’t the whole point of the fraud claim that the wrongdoer deceived the victim?  Conceptually, I don’t see how the bad guy gets to hide behind his contract, when the injured part was induced, by false promises, to enter into the contract.  The false promises should negate the terms of the contract, at least insofar as such terms act to exculpate the bad guy.

Now, here’s an even deeper way to look at the issue, which takes us into philosophical terms.  Judge Posner posits that, “There is, however, a limited duty of good faith at the contract-formation stage as well.”

Now we’re getting to the point.  Are we focusing on a wrong arising out of the contract, or a wrong that preceded the contract?

“It is one thing to say that you can exploit your superior knowledge of the market for if you cannot, you will not be able to recoup the investment you made in obtaining that knowledge or that you are not required to spend money bailing out a contract partner who has gotten into trouble.  It is another thing to say that you can take deliberate advantage of an oversight by your contract partner concerning his rights under the contract.”

This runs straight to a utilitarian moral theory, which is not easy to square with cold-blooded contract analysis.  Yet Judge Posner continues on.  “Such taking advantage is not the exploitation of superior knowledge or the avoidance of unbargained-for expense . . . Like theft, it has no social product, and also like theft it induces costly defensive expenditures, in the form of overelaborate disclaimers or investigations into the trustworthiness of a prospective contract partner, just as the prospect of theft induces expenditures on locks.”

Richard A. Posner, “Let Us Never Blame a Contract Breaker,” in Michigan Law Review, Vol. 107, No. 8, page 1349

I read a recent article in the Consumer Finance Law Quarterly Report about bankruptcy filings after the 2005 reform act.  The author (Jon Ann H. Giblin) compared 2006 filings with 2007 filings (in her table).

I asked myself – Which states have more filings, on a percentage basis?  (This, of course, begs the question of why, which is another matter.)  I used the U.S. Census Bureau information and combined it with the 2007 filing data to show filings as a percentage of population.

Tennessee and Alabama top the list.  Lots of pain in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.  Odd to note the substantial difference between Georgia and S. Carolina. 

Update – My friend, Nashville bankruptcy attorney Kevin Key, points out that Suth Carolina does not permit wage garnishment, which helps account for the low bankruptcy filings in that state.   The discharge is not needed if state law already prevents creditors from enforcing their debts. 

Relationship-based fiduciary duties (as counterposed with contract-based fiduciary duties) arise in many different situations.  I recently came across an extension of the fiduciary concept in the field of charitable solicitations.

Specifically, California Business and Professions Code section 17510.8 states, “There exists a fiduciary relationship between a charity or any person soliciting on behalf of a charity and the person from whom a charitable contribution is being solicited.”

The statute continues.  “The acceptance of charitable contributions by a charity [establishes] a duty on the part of the charity and the person soliciting on behalf of the charity to use those charitable contributions for the declared charitable purposes for which they are sought.”  The statute concludes by reciting that, “This section is declarative of existing trust law principles.”

Those few words establish an extraordinarily high obligation both on the part of the charity and on the person making a charitable solicitation.  Classic formulation of fiduciary duties expounds that the person subject to the duty has an obligation to put the beneficiary’s interest ahead of his or her own interest.  Such a duty is non-delegable.

The 1992 Law Review Commission comments offer no citations to relevant authority, nor are there any published cases applying this law.  Perhaps the statement that the statute is “declarative of existing trust law” is overbroad.

Taken literally, this statute would have the effect of making a person who solicits contributions for a charity effectively a guarantor of the money,  meaning that if the money was not used for a charitable purpose, or, if it were embezzled by someone at the charity, the solicitor would be liable to come out-of-pocket to make up the contribution.

Surely, the legislature could not have intended such a result.  But, that is what happens when people loosely use the term “fiduciary relationship.”  Not all fiduciary obligations are the same.  The obligations owed by a member of an LLC to another member, although fiduciary in nature, are not the same as, for example, the obligations owed by a professional trustee to the beneficiary of an irrevocable trust.

It is a mistake to assume – or assert – that all fiduciary obligations are identical.  The legislature does us a disservice when it uses these terms carelessly.  The statute did not need to define the relationship as being “fiduciary” in nature – it would have been fully sufficient to provide that the charity and the person making the solicitation owe a “duty” to the donor.

I have been approached by numerous potential clients asking if I can help with the restructuring of their mortgages.  The short answer is that I can provide no assurance regarding a refinancing.  The rules are murky, and the literature indicates that lenders are not providing meaningful reductions.

A recent article by Prof. Brent White from the University of Arizona law school has provoked heartburn in the lending community.  Prof. White argues that that many borrowers would be better off if they simply walked away from their underwater loans and rented a house.  He cites statistics showing that 71% of mortgages in the Fresno area are underwater as of 2009.  It’s even worse in Bakersfield, where 79% of mortgages are underwater.

Prof. White argues that strong societal and emotional ties keep borrowers from walking away, even if walking away would save them $100,000, $200,000, or even more over the course of the loan.  Lenders know that most persons will do almost anything to avoid a foreclosure.  Here’s his all-too-true explanation of how the refinancing process works in the real world:

“A seriously underwater homeowner with good credit and solid mortgage payment history who calls his lender to work out a loan modification is likely to be told by his leader that it will not discuss a loan modification until the homeowner is 30 days or more delinquent on his mortgage payment.  The lender is making a bet (and a good one) that the homeowner values his credit score too much to miss a payment and will just give up the idea of a loan modification.

“However, if the homeowner does what the lender suggests –  misses a payment and calls back to discuss a loan modification in 30 days –  the homeowner is likely to be told to call back when he is 90 days delinquent.

“In the meantime, the lender will send the borrower a series of strongly-worded notices reminding him of his moral obligation to pay and threatening legal action, including foreclosure and a deficiency judgment if the homeowner does not bring his mortgage payments current.

“The lender is again making a bet (and again a good one) that the homeowner will be shamed or frightened into paying their mortgage.  If the homeowner calls the lender’s bluff and calls back when he is 90 days delinquent, there is a good possibility that he will be told that his credit score is now so low that he does not qualify for a loan modification.

“The homeowner must then decide whether to bring the loan current or face foreclosure.  If the homeowner somehow makes clear to the lender that he has chosen foreclosure, the lender may finally be willing to negotiate a loan modification, a short-sale or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure – all of which still leave the homeowner’s credit in tatters (at least temporary).

“Most lenders will in other words, take full advantage of the asymmetry of norms between lender and homeowner and will use the threat of damaging the borrower’s credit score to bring the homeowner into compliance.  Additionally, many lenders will only bargain when the threat of damaging the homeowner’s credit has lost its force and it becomes clear to the lender that foreclosure is imminent absent some accommodation.”

That’s a fair reflection of the process, as potential clients have explained it to me.  Lenders have not established clear procedures for refinancing.  Lenders do not want to write down the value of their loans.  Lenders know that there is a strong negative societal cost to the borrower from a foreclosure.  Lenders have made the refinancing process difficult, if not impossible, for most persons.

This is a difficult argument, as it mixes morals and finances.  Like many persons, I think that we have a moral obligation to pay our debts.  Further, there is no legal obligation for the lender to change the terms of the loan.  On the other hand, the way some of these loans are written, the borrowers will end up up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be avoided if they executed a “strategic foreclosure.”  Paying all this extra money might be construed as “waste” in economic terms.

Also, Prof. White points out that the underwater homes are disrupting the labor markets, in that individuals are reluctant to move because they do not wish to take a loss on their home.  When homeowners are unwilling to move because their house is underwater, labor mobility is seriously hindered by the housing crisis.

Cite to:
Brent T. White, University of Arizona – James E. Rogers College of Law

Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No 09-35