Henry Harvey v. Federal National Mortgage Association
200 So. 3d 461
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Henry and Lillie Harvey bought 17.8 acres in Grenada County in 1988 and later executed a deed of trust in 2007 to secure a loan with Wells Fargo.
- After default, FNMA (via trustee substitution and recorded instruments) conducted a foreclosure sale on January 29, 2013; FNMA acquired title via sale and subsequent deeds.
- FNMA served a Notice of Foreclosure and Tenants Rights and then filed an unlawful entry and detainer action in justice court seeking eviction of the Harveys.
- Justice court entered judgment for eviction; the Harveys appealed to the circuit court and disputed the foreclosure, claiming forgery of Lillie’s signature and that only 1.5 acres (not 17.8) were subject to the loan.
- The circuit court limited the hearing to possession (unlawful detainer), held FNMA had valid foreclosure title for purposes of eviction, and ordered the Harveys removed; the Harveys appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreclosure validity and title could be litigated in eviction proceeding | Harveys: foreclosure invalid; Lillie’s signature forged; only 1.5 acres was pledged | FNMA: eviction seeks possession after foreclosure; foreclosure already completed and title held by FNMA | Court: Foreclosure validity/ownership not litigable in unlawful-detainer; eviction appropriate and Harveys must vacate |
| Whether Harveys preserved and briefed reversible error on appeal | Harveys: asserted factual claims in pro se brief about forgery and wrongful sale | FNMA: Harveys failed to identify legal issues, cite authority, or develop argument | Court: Harveys’ brief procedurally deficient and issues are barred for review |
| Standard of review for circuit court bench findings | Harveys: (implicitly challenge factual findings) | FNMA: bench findings supported by record | Court: Affirmed—findings supported by substantial, credible, reasonable evidence; deference to trial judge |
| Proper forum for title disputes vs possession disputes | Harveys: sought to challenge title in this appeal | FNMA: title matters belong in chancery court; unlawful-detainer only addresses possession | Court: Title disputes must be filed in chancery; unlawful-detainer does not resolve ownership |
Key Cases Cited
- McWhorter v. Cal-Maine Farms Inc., 913 So. 2d 193 (Miss. 2005) (bench findings entitled to deference; appellate affirmance if supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2003) (failure to cite relevant authority relieves appellate court’s obligation to review issue)
- Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452 (Miss. 2001) (authority on appellants’ duty to provide legal support)
- Gandy v. Citicorp, 985 So. 2d 371 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (unlawful entry and detainer seeks possession; ownership disputes belong in chancery)
- White v. Usry, 800 So. 2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (county/civil unlawful-detainer action cannot be used to resolve title; chancery is proper forum)
- Minor v. City of Indianola, 909 So. 2d 146 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (appellants bear burden to show reversible error; trial court judgment presumed correct)