Todd Hallquist v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
715 F.3d 1040
8th Cir.2013Background
- Hallquists borrowed $211,000 in October 2008 secured by a Deed of Trust on their Missouri home, with MERS as beneficiary.
- MERS conveyed its interest to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., which appointed Millsap & Singer, PC as successor trustee for the foreclosure.
- Millsap conducted a non-judicial foreclosure on August 25, 2011; SunTrust had the winning credit bid and a Successor Trustee's Deed listed Fannie Mae as purchaser.
- In October 2011, Hallquists sued for multiple foreclosure improprieties, seeking quiet title and injunction; district court dismissed the claims.
- Hallquists moved to reconsider; the district court denied; Hallquists appealed challenging the underlying dismissal and seeking review of all counts.
- The panel determines jurisdiction under FRAP 3 and considers whether to review the underlying order and all listed counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal properly challenges the underlying judgment | Hallquists intended to appeal the underlying judgment via Form A and appeal information form. | Defendants contend only the denial of the motion to reconsider is appealable. | Court has jurisdiction to review underlying judgment and all five counts. |
| Standing to challenge Fannie Mae designation as purchaser | Hallquists can challenge post-sale title and designation after sale. | Once title vested in SunTrust, Hallquists cannot challenge post-sale designation. | Hallquists lack standing to challenge Fannie Mae's designation after title vested. |
| Validity of foreclosure-sale procedures and credit bid | Credit bid and trustee actions may have breached duties or law. | Credit bid and trustee actions were permissible under Missouri law. | Foreclosure procedures complied with Missouri law; trustee could accept credit bid. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty claim against the trustee | Trustee breached duties by actions around the sale and designation. | No duty breach established; sale procedures were proper and duties did not extend to challenged acts. | District court's dismissal affirmed; no viable breach of fiduciary duty shown. |
| Authority to challenge post-sale actions after foreclosure | Claims like unlawful detainer actions and post-sale recording issues violate duties. | Some post-sale claims lack standing or misstate remedies; rights terminated at sale. | Hallquists challenged post-sale issues without success; claims after sale properly rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Raynor v. Nat'l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin., Corp., 690 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversal standard for denial of motion to reconsider; de novo review on dismissals varies)
- Turkish Coal. of Am., Inc. v. Bruininks, 678 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review when reviewing grant of dismissal)
- Martin v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 639 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards; plausibility standard for claims)
- USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, Mo., 583 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional Rule 3(a) and notice sufficiency)
- ELCA Enters., Inc. v. Sisco Equip. Rental & Sales, Inc., 53 F.3d 186 (8th Cir. 1995) (appeal jurisdiction and form supplements to notice of appeal)
- Burgess v. Suzuki Motor Co., 71 F.3d 304 (8th Cir. 1995) (appeal information form can supplement or amend notice of appeal)
- Parkhill v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 286 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2002) (affects scope of appellate review under FRAP 3 and 10(b)(3))
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith, 392 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. banc 2013) (unlawful detainer limitations and designation issues)