Fannie Mae v. My Quang Truong
2012 Mo. LEXIS 69
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Truong purchased a Missouri home in March 2006 and executed a deed of trust; loan modification efforts occurred in early 2010.
- Truong left for Vietnam in August 2010; after his return, notices were sent including default, foreclosure, and trustee's sale notices in August 2010.
- Fannie Mae purchased the property at a trustee's sale on September 10, 2010, and Truong remained in possession.
- Fannie Mae filed an unlawful detainer action on September 22, 2010, seeking possession and damages for lost rents; summary judgment was requested and granted on February 28, 2011.
- Truong did not file a circuit court trial de novo; instead, he appealed directly to the Missouri Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding Truong failed to pursue the statutorily required trial de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to seek trial de novo bars appellate review | Truong argues the court has jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to the statute. | Fannie Mae contends the statute requires a trial de novo and not a direct appeal. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; de novo remedy required. |
| Whether section 512.180.1 governs review of unlawful detainer judgments | Truong asserts a right to Supreme Court review of constitutional issues under 512.180.1. | Fannie Mae argues 512.180.1 applies only if a trial de novo is pursued. | Section 512.180.1 requires a trial de novo; direct appeal improper. |
| When is an unlawful detainer case 'tried' for 512.180 purposes | Truong contends the case was not 'tried' because no jury trial occurred and summary judgment disposed of issues. | Fannie Mae argues the filing of summary judgment constitutes disposal of the action. | Case was 'tried' for 512.180.1 purposes; Truong needed a trial de novo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farinella v. Croft, 922 S.W.2d 755 (Mo. banc 1996) (appeal requires statutory sanction; no right without statute)
- S & P Properties, Inc. v. Bannister, 292 S.W.3d 404 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (summary judgment in unlawful detainer affects appealability)
- Prosser v. Derickson, 1 S.W.3d 608 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (case 'tried' when full disposition occurs)
- Tittsworth v. Chaffin, 741 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.App. S.D.1987) (case 'tried' upon dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Lake in the Woods Apartment v. Carson, 651 S.W.2d 556 (Mo.App. E.D.1983) (unlawful detainer procedures are summary)
- Riverside-Quindaro Bend Levee Dist. v. Intercontinental Engineering Mfg. Corp., 121 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. banc 2003) (statutory interpretation guiding plain meaning)