“Equitable subordination” is used to correct equitable wrongs in the priority of liens on real property. If fairness requires, a first lien or deed of trust can be subordinated, or reduced in priority below, a second lien, swapping their positions. (Civ. Code, §§ 2876, 2903, 2904. A lengthy description by the Supreme Court is copied below). When, through fraud or mistake, a party finds that his lien does not have the priority he bargained for, they should consult with a Sacramento real estate attorney to discuss equitable subordination. Such a lawsuit may result in the judge reclassifying the respective liens to make them fair. In a recent decision the court granted equitable subordination on behalf of two deeds of trust where there was both broker fraud (in forging signatures) and escrow negligence in failing to carry out instructions and reconvey a deed of trust.
In Elbert Branscomb v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Navjot owned property on Canal Street in San Rafael. He had three loans; 1st, from Washington Mutual Bank; 2nd with MMB; and 3rd, a $500,000 loan from plaintiff Branscomb. All were secured by deeds of trust. However, Banscomb’s 3rd DOT only indicated that I the loan was for $100,000, due to the broker’s negligence. Navjot refinanced with WaMu, and Modified the MMU loan. Conditions of both were that the lenders were to keep their respective first & second positions. When the escrow officer asked Branscomb’s broker for a payoff of the third, he replied that it was zero, and signed a request for reconveyance. (Yikes, it was $500,000! This broker was bad news. He was also found to have forged his client’s signature on a number of documents. He had done this before, but Branscomb continued to work with him. They deserved each other.) Compounding the broker’s error, the escrow officer was negligent in not reconveying the Third deed of trust. When the first & second refinances recorded, Branscomb moved to 1st, and the other two dropped to 2nd & 3rd. This lawsuit for equitable subordination resulted.
Knowledge of the Plaintiff’s Lien Did Not Prevent Subordination