94 So. 3d 378
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- MorEquity filed an ejectment action against Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd for possession of property the Byrds used as their residence.
- MorEquity alleged it acquired title through a foreclosure sale and the Byrds detained the property after being told to vacate.
- The Byrds answered pro se, later retaining counsel and asserting the foreclosure was conducted without MorEquity having a valid ownership interest.
- MorEquity moved for summary judgment; the Byrds opposed, arguing the foreclosure was void or invalid for lack of authority.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in MorEquity’s favor and issued a writ of possession; the Byrds appealed, challenging standing and related issues.
- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals ultimately reversed and remanded on the standing issue, rejecting the trial court’s conclusion that MorEquity had standing to prosecute the ejectment action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MorEquity had standing to prosecute ejectment | MorEquity possessed a foreclosure deed and sought possession under § 6-6-280(b). | Byrds contend MorEquity lacked authority due to a void foreclosure/no valid assignment of the mortgage power. | MorEquity lacked prima facie standing due to contested assignment/date issues. |
| Whether MorEquity had authority to initiate foreclosure when the deed was assigned | Assignment from MERS/ Wilmington Finance to MorEquity supported foreclosure power. | Conflict over assignment date showed lack of authority to initiate foreclosure. | Material factual dispute on assignment date precluded standing finding; summary judgment reversed. |
| Whether testimony and notices raised genuine issues about foreclosure validity | Illustrative notices and documents supported foreclosure and sale validity. | Evidence suggested foreclosure proceedings may have been invalid or improperly executed. | Courts did not reach these issues due to standing problem; they may be addressed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 950 So.2d 277 (Ala.2006) (standing and ejectment framework under mortgage foreclosure)
- Ex parte McKinney, 87 So.3d 502 (Ala.2011) (disfavored attempt to cloak failure to state a cognizable claim as standing)
- Berry v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 57 So.3d 142 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (ejectment based on foreclosure deed; sale validity as affirmative defense)
- Steele v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 69 So.3d 89 (Ala.2010) (overruled on other grounds; foreclosure power concepts discussed)
- Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala.2006) (constitutional/statutory framework for jurisdictional questions)