Bank of America, N.A. v. Alexander
2017 MT 31
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Alexander executed a quitclaim transferring some interests to her husband to obtain a $336,000 loan secured by the Victor, MT property; she later claimed BANA assured she would not lose interest in the property.
- Her husband died in 2006; Alexander contends she was told she could assume and modify the loan in her name and made numerous payments, though the loan defaulted in 2009.
- Foreclosure proceedings were initiated; Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded in April 2014 and the sale occurred August 28, 2014, with Trustee’s Deed recorded on September 3, 2014, selling the property to BANA.
- BANA served Alexander with a Notice to Quit in March 2015; she remained on the property and BANA filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in May 2015.
- Alexander, representing herself, asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of oral agreement, and unjust enrichment, but did not plead a separate fraud claim; district court later granted summary judgment for BANA on unlawful detainer and on all counterclaims.
- The district court rejected Alexander’s challenge to the sale’s validity and found no credible evidence supporting her allegations of fraud or other claims; the court also held the contract-based claims time-barred and her unjust enrichment claim unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BANA was entitled to summary judgment and writ based on unlawful detainer | BANA; sale valid, possession transferred to purchaser, untimely vacate supports unlawful detainer | Alexander disputes sale facts and seeks to void foreclosure | Affirmative; sale valid and unlawful detainer supported |
| Whether Alexander sufficiently averred a claim of fraud | Fraud not pled with particularity; no specific misrepresentations identified | Alexander alleged overall fraud in context of loan dealings | Dismissed; insufficient particularity; no prima facie fraud case |
| Whether breach of written or oral contract claims are barred by the statute of limitations | BANA failed to timely raise contract claims | Any contract claim accrued at or before transfer of interest in 2005 or foreclosure in 2009 | Barred; accrual occurred by 2005 (written) or 2009 (oral); statute of limitations ran |
| Whether breach of oral agreement claims are barred by the statute of frauds | Oral promise to allow modification/assumption persisted until foreclosure | Oral modification claim falls within statute of frauds and must be in writing | Barred by statute of frauds; no valid oral-modification claim |
| Whether Alexander properly alleged and offered evidence for unjust enrichment | Unjust enrichment requires proof of defendant’s misconduct or taking advantage of plaintiff; no evidence here | Alexander asserts enrichment due to BANA’s conduct | Unsupported; no evidentiary support; grant of summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Western Sec. Bank v. Edie Baill, LLP, 359 Mont. 34 (Mont. 2010) (fraud pleadings require particularity)
- Textana, Inc. v. Klabzuba Oil & Gas, 353 Mont. 442 (Mont. 2009) (accrual and discovery rules for contract actions)
- Morrow v. Bank of America, N.A., 324 P.3d 1167 (Mont. 2014) (oral modification must be in writing; statute of frauds)
- Estate of Pruyn v. Axmen Propane, Inc., 354 Mont. 208 (Mont. 2009) (unjust enrichment elements; absence of contract supports claim)
- Ryffel Family P’ship v. Alpine Country Constr., Inc., 386 Mont. 165 (Mont. 2016) (unjust enrichment limitations; evidence required)