Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Wilson
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 855
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fannie Mae purchased Respondent's foreclosed property at a foreclosure sale after Wells Fargo foreclosed the deed of trust.
- The successor trustee’s deed recited that notice of foreclosure was sent by certified mail at least 20 days prior to the sale.
- Respondent refused to surrender and Fannie Mae filed an unlawful detainer action.
- Trial court found Respondent never defaulted and that Respondent’s possession predated Fannie Mae’s title, making Respondent’s possession superior.
- Trial court also held that Fannie Mae failed to provide written notice/demand required by Section 534.030.1 and that Sections 534.030.2-.3 applied if Respondent was a tenant; court granted Respondent relief.
- This appeal followed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to immediate possession in unlawful detainer | Fannie Mae proves sale, notice, and refusal to surrender | Respondent challenges default and title | Fannie Mae proved entitlement to immediate possession |
| Lease provision creates superior possession | Respondent is a holdover borrower; lease operates as tenancy | Lease provisions should grant tenant rights | Respondent is not a tenant; lease clause does not confer possession rights; holdover borrower proves outcome |
| Notice and written demand requirements | Foreclosure notice suffices for foreclosed borrowers | Respondent entitled to written demand under Sections 534.030.2-.3 | Written demand not required for foreclosed borrowers; notice suffices; intruder-written-demand rule applies to intruders only |
Key Cases Cited
- US Bank v. Watson, 388 S.W.3d 233 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (unlawful detainer limits on title disputes; proof requires sale, notice, and refusal to surrender)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Smith, 392 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. banc 2013) (foreclosure purchaser may pursue unlawful detainer; title challenges belong elsewhere)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Smith, 392 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. banc 2013) (same as above; recognized held-over tenants vs borrowers distinctions)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Tate, 279 S.W.3d 236 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (unlawful detainer proof requirements; foreclosure purchaser’s rights)
- Edwards v. Hoxworth, 258 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.App.1953) (distinguishes holdover tenant from holdover borrower; inapposite here)