Campbell v. Bank of America, N.A.
141 So. 3d 492
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Campbells appeal an ejectment judgment in Bank of America’s favor after a nonjudicial foreclosure on a 1998 mortgage.
- Mortgage default occurred in 2004, foreclosure proceedings were accelerated, and originally scheduled foreclosures proceeded after bankruptcy delays, culminating in a 2008 foreclosure sale and Bank of America taking title.
- Campbells alleged HUD loss-mitigation noncompliance, contending the sale was void or voidable due to failure to offer/reenforce loss-mitigation efforts.
- Circuit court held HUD loss-mitigation procedures were mandatory, Bank of America substantially complied, and Campbells’ ejectment claim succeeded only if a void defect existed; collateral attack theory was invoked.
- This Alabama court holds that an ejectment action is a collateral attack and may not raise a voidable foreclosure defect; only void defects may be invoked as a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May HUD loss-mitigation noncompliance be a defense in ejectment? | Campbells contend loss-mitigation failure defeats title. | Ejectment is collateral, not a foreclosure action; only voids may be raised. | No; loss-mitigation noncompliance not a defense in ejectment. |
| Do Berry/Hawkins permit an ejectment defense for foreclosure irregularities? | Irregularities may defeat ejectment under Berry/Hawkins. | Those cases are limited and do not apply to nonjudicial ejectment as here. | Berry/Hawkins support only voids; not a broad defense in ejectment. |
| Can irregularities render a foreclosure sale voidable or void in ejectment? | Sale irregularities may render void or voidable, potentially defenseable. | Only voids may be asserted in collateral ejectment; voidable issues require direct action. | Irregularities may render a sale voidable, but not a defense in ejectment. |
| Did the circuit court abuse by denying postjudgment hearing on the motion? | Hearing was necessary to challenge merits. | Moot since issues resolved as a matter of law. | Harmless error; ruling resolved on law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So.3d 195 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (loss-mitigation failure not an ejectment defense)
- Berry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 57 So.3d 142 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (void-sale considerations may defeat ejectment defense)
- Hawkins v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 24 So.3d 1143 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (en masse sale impact on mortgagor; later held consistent with voids analysis)
- Dewberry v. Bank of Standing Rock, 227 Ala. 484 (1933) (collateral attack concept in foreclosure context)
- Weeks v. Wolf Creek Indus., Inc., 941 So.2d 263 (Ala.2006) (de novo review for law issues; preserved factual correctness standard)