State ex rel. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Chamberlain
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 485
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Deutsche Bank seeks a permanent writ of prohibition to stop enforcement of a discovery order in an unlawful detainer action, after a preliminary writ was issued and made absolute.
- DBNTC filed an unlawful detainer petition against the Lisenbees asserting it purchased the property at a trustee’s sale on February 28, 2011 and that the Lisenbees unlawfully detain the property.
- A judgment on July 14, 2011 awarded DBNTC possession to the property.
- The Lisenbees later sought trial de novo and began discovery, propounding interrogatories, admissions, and production requests; DBNTC objected to most requests.
- The Lisenbees filed a separate federal case challenging DBNTC’s standing, which remains pending, while in mid-2011 DBNTC moved for summary judgment, attaching a certified trustee’s deed.
- In December 2011, Respondent granted a motion to compel discovery related to standing; DBNTC sought prohibition, arguing the discovery impermissibly probes title instead of possession in unlawful detainer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery order improperly sought title merits in unlawful detainer. | Deutsche Bank contends discovery on standing or title merits is outside unlawful detainer scope. | Lisenbees argue standing is central to possession and discovery should address it. | Yes; the order was an abuse of discretion because it impermissibly probed title/merits. |
| Whether standing to sue in unlawful detainer is defined by statute and limited to possession. | DBNTC asserts standing is conferred by statute upon foreclosed-property purchasers by trustee’s deed. | Lisenbees contend standing may involve broader inquiry into process. | Standing is defined by statute and limited to possession; merits of title cannot be explored in this action. |
| Whether the trustee’s deed provides immediate possessory right usable in unlawful detainer. | DBNTC argues trustee’s deed evidences immediate right to possession enforceable in unlawful detainer. | Lisenbees argue that title-related challenges affect possessory rights. | Correct; the trustee’s deed demonstrates possession rights; the case cannot pursue equitable title challenges here. |
| Whether the court should permit discovery to proceed given the summary nature of unlawful detainer. | DBNTC maintains discovery is inappropriate to delay or defeat the summary purpose. | Lisenbees insist discovery is needed to resolve standing before summary judgment. | Discovery ordered on title is inappropriate and would undermine the summary nature. |
| Whether the remedy should be adjusted to reflect legislative intent rather than court-made exceptions. | DBNTC emphasizes clear statutory limits and the legislature’s intent for a summary eviction remedy. | Lisenbees urge reforms to address foreclosure-related inequities. | The remedy’s scope is statutory; the court cannot rewrite or create exceptions to unlawful detainer. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr, 831 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. banc 1992) (abuse of discretion triggers prohibition remedy)
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Nixon, 160 S.W.3d 379 (Mo. banc 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery orders)
- Walker v. Anderson, 182 S.W.3d 266 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (standing and title issues in unlawful detainer contexts)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (equitable issues cannot be raised in unlawful detainer)
- Lake in the Woods Apartment v. Carson, 651 S.W.2d 556 (Mo.App. E.D.1983) (unlawful detainer is a summary remedy; equity defenses not allowed)
- Fannie Mae v. Truong, 361 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. banc 2012) (unlawful detainer statutory framework limits evidence on detainer merits)
- McNeill v. McNeill, 456 S.W.2d 800 (Mo.App.1970) (possessory rights relate to unlawfully detained property)
- Edwards v. Hoxworth, 258 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.App.1953) (title-related defenses distinct from possessory inquiry)