Alfonzia Biles v. Tiffany Roby
W2016-02139-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 11, 2017Background
- Alfonzia and Tonya Biles executed a deed of trust in 2005, defaulted, and US Bank foreclosed; US Bank recorded a substitute trustee’s deed on November 10, 2014.
- US Bank bought the property at foreclosure, later sold it to Tiffany Roby in February 2015 by special warranty deed; Roby recorded her deed and sought possession when the Biles refused to vacate.
- Roby prevailed in general sessions; the Biles obtained writs of certiorari and supersedeas for de novo review in circuit court, asserting wrongful foreclosure and other defenses; US Bank nonsuited its detainer before trial.
- At the de novo circuit trial, testimony (including a mortgage-banking expert) and judicial admissions supported that US Bank obtained title and Roby was the subsequent purchaser; the court awarded possession to Roby.
- On appeal the Biles raised multiple challenges: alleged failure to give acceleration notice, pending loan-modification request (RESPA claim), chain-of-title defects (missing substitute trustee deed at trial), standing/assignment issues, negotiable-instrument arguments, bona fide purchaser status, and prior suit/claim-splitting defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Biles) | Defendant's Argument (Roby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was foreclosure void for lack of an acceleration letter? | No proof US Bank transmitted required acceleration letter, so sale void. | Burden to prove affirmative defense of wrongful foreclosure is on Biles; Biles pleaded receipt of an acceleration letter (judicial admission). | Rejected — Biles bore burden and had judicially admitted the transmission. |
| Was foreclosure void due to pending loan modification / RESPA violation? | Submitted modification request; foreclosure while under loss-mitigation review violates 12 C.F.R. §1024.41 and voids sale. | RESPA and §1024.41 provide monetary remedies, not voiding of sales; irregularities in modification process do not invalidate foreclosure. | Rejected — regulation affords damages, not a basis to annul the sale. |
| Did Roby fail to prove chain of title (substitute trustee’s deed)? | Trial lacked admission of US Bank’s substitute trustee’s deed; title unclear. | Biles pleaded and Roby admitted recording date; trial evidence and expert review corroborated recording. | Rejected — judicial admissions and record evidence establish US Bank’s deed and chain of title. |
| Did US Bank lack standing to enforce/assign note? | MILA, Inc. allegedly lost corporate power before assignment, so assignment to US Bank ineffective. | Argument was skeletal and undeveloped; issues waived for lack of briefing. | Waived — insufficiently developed; court declined to address merits. |
| Is Roby barred by prior-suit-pending / claim-splitting? | Roby’s detainer filed while US Bank’s detainer was pending, so subsequent action barred. | US Bank nonsuited its detainer before trial; a dismissed prior suit does not bar later suit; claim-splitting moot after nonsuit. | Rejected — prior action was nonsuited; doctrine inapplicable without an actually pending prior suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Ledford, 419 S.W.3d 269 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (presumption of correctness for bench-trial factual findings)
- Watson v. Watson, 196 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (standard for evidence preponderance against trial court findings)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (de novo review of legal questions)
- Boyce v. LPP Mortgage Ltd., 435 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (wrongful foreclosure as affirmative defense in detainer actions)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Drake, 410 S.W.3d 797 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (unlawful detainer context and defenses)
- Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farrar, 337 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (burden of proving affirmative defenses)
- Zimmerman v. Elm Hill Marina, 839 S.W.2d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (effect of admissions in pleadings)
- Collier v. Greenbrier Developers LLC, 358 S.W.3d 195 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (assignment/assignee-stands-in-shoes principle)
- In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn.) (waiver of arguments raised first time at closing)
- Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn.) (appellate briefing and issue development requirements)
- West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn.) (prior-suit-pending inapplicable where prior suit dismissed)
- Cannon ex rel. Good v. Reddy, 428 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn.) (elements of the prior-suit-pending doctrine)