Erickson Cabin, LLC v. Busey Bank, 31 F.4th 1044

In 2006 the Ericksons bought Putnam County, Missouri property; in January 2007 Michael and Arnold Erickson executed a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust listing Pulaski Bank as lender.
Pulaski routinely sold retail loans via MERS; the Ericksons’ note was transferred through Countrywide to Nationstar; Pulaski later merged into Busey Bank.
In early 2018 an Iowa attorney contacted Busey about the 2007 deed; Busey employees Schulte and Bradley, finding no active loan records, prepared and recorded a March 5, 2018 “Full Deed of Release” incorrectly claiming Busey was the note holder.
After Michael Erickson informed Busey that Nationstar held the note, Busey had employees search MERS, confirmed Nationstar’s ownership, and Schulte emailed Erickson stating he would correct the error; Busey later filed a March 20, 2019 “Affidavit of Erroneous Deed of Release.”
Erickson Cabin, LLC (to which the Ericksons had transferred the property) entered a sale contract in May 2019 but the buyers cancelled because of title clouds; Erickson Cabin sued for slander of title; the Busey Defendants removed the case and moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment for Busey Defendants; on appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Erickson Cabin failed to raise a genuine issue on the required malice element of slander of title.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Erickson Cabin produced evidence of malice required for slander of title	The recorded Full Deed of Release was false and caused a cloud on title and pecuniary loss; the recording showed culpable conduct	The release was an inadvertent, good-faith error based on available records and lack of MERS access; Busey corrected the record when alerted	No genuine dispute of material fact on malice; the conduct was innocently or ignorantly made, so slander-of-title fails
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record and witness testimony	Erickson Cabin argued credibility issues warranted a trial	Busey argued its witnesses’ testimony and documentary record were consistent and unrebutted	Summary judgment proper under de novo review; nonmoving party failed to produce more than a scintilla of contrary evidence

Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (defines elements of slander of title and explains malice requirement)
Arbors at Sugar Creek Homeowners Ass'n v. Jefferson Bank & Tr. Co., 464 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. banc 2015) (reiterates slander-of-title requires false, malicious publication causing pecuniary loss)
First Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Ricon, Inc., 311 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (good-faith belief in a right can negate malice)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standards)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of summary judgment)
United States v. 3234 Washington Ave. N., 480 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2007) (when a movant's testimony is internally consistent with exhibits, the nonmoving party cannot force trial without contrary evidence)