Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle
518 S.W.3d 805
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Enoch and Karen Pyle (Homeowners) purchased property and executed a 2005 loan; Bank sought to quiet title in 2011 claiming the original deed of trust was lost and asking the court to declare a recorded copy (Deed Copy) a first-priority encumbrance.
- Homeowners later filed counterclaims including HCC 1 alleging Bank prosecuted the suit frivolously under Mo. Rev. Stat. §514.205; the trial court dismissed HCC 1 on the morning of trial and converted the selected jury to an advisory jury.
- Trial evidence included: photocopies of the note and deed, Advantage (closing agent) internal records indicating the original mortgage was missing and a lost-mortgage affidavit was recorded, and a forensic examiner who opined the signatures on the copies were genuine.
- The advisory jury found signatures on the note and deed copies were authentic; the court, as factfinder, adopted findings, concluded the deed was lost and Bank complied with the Lost Deed Law, and entered judgment quieting title subject to Bank’s deed and declaring the Deed Copy authentic.
- Homeowners appealed raising nine points: (inter alia) dismissal of HCC 1 and jury-right issues under §514.205, denial of jury on Bank’s petition (equity v. law), admission of photocopied exhibits (best evidence/authentication/hearsay), improper peremptory challenge handling, and insufficiency of evidence that the Deed Copy was authentic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Homeowners) | Defendant's Argument (Bank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of HCC 1 (§514.205 frivolous-suit claim) was erroneous and entitled Homeowners to jury trial | HCC 1 pleaded a statutory claim for damages under §514.205 and thus entitled them to a jury and a hearing on sanctions | HCC 1 failed to plead the elements adequately; dismissal was proper and the remaining action was equitable | Affirmed: dismissal sustained; Homeowners did not adequately develop or show §514.205 elements on appeal; no jury right shown for that claim |
| Whether Bank’s quiet-title petition required a jury (action at law) or was equitable | Quiet-title plaintiff says action is at law for title determination and demands jury | Bank contends lawsuit to declare a lost deed and to enforce a lost-deed copy is equitable under the Lost Deed Law | Affirmed: petition is equitable; jury demand was properly treated as advisory |
| Admissibility of photocopies (pooling agreement, note copy, lost-deed affidavit & deed copy) — best evidence/authentication/hearsay objections | Photocopies should have been excluded under best evidence and authentication rules; admission prejudiced Homeowners by implying copies equal originals | Bank showed originals were lost or unavailable, laid sufficient foundation and presented corroborating evidence (custodial records, notary details, forensic signature analysis) | Affirmed: even if some evidentiary rulings were close, Homeowners failed to show a reasonable probability of prejudice; secondary evidence admissible where originals unavailable and trustworthy |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Deed Copy was a true, accurate, authentic copy of the original (substantial-evidence challenge) | Only the recorded affidavit supported the Deed Copy; that affidavit was inadmissible hearsay and best-evidence violation, so no competent evidence sustained judgment | Bank produced multiple corroborating items: custody records showing original missing, Advantage records, notary and document consistency, and expert forensic signature testimony | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported the court’s finding that the deed was lost and the Deed Copy was authentic; Homeowners failed to identify and explain all favorable evidence against their challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. Moore, 486 S.W.3d 919 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Barker v. Tobben, 311 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury right attaches to actions at law, not equity; mixed cases guidance)
- Ousley v. Casada, 985 S.W.2d 757 (Mo. banc 1999) (foundation for admitting secondary evidence: original unavailable, unavailability not proponent's fault, and trustworthiness)
- Wheelhouse Marina Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Bommarito, 284 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (photocopy admissible as secondary evidence when originals are lost/unavailable)
- Boroughf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (photocopy inadmissible where no evidence original was lost or unavailable)
- Stokes v. Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc., 168 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (reversal only where evidentiary abuse had material effect)
- Weber v. Knackstedt, 707 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (purpose and limits of best-evidence rule)