Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith
2013 Mo. LEXIS 17
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Smiths lost their home to foreclosure and Wells Fargo purchased it at sale; Wells Fargo sued for unlawful detainer after Smiths did not vacate.
- Associate circuit court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo; Smiths appealed challenging section 534.210’s constitutionality.
- Smiths asserted numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims seeking to challenge Wells Fargo’s title; Wells Fargo moved to dismiss these as beyond section 534.210’s scope.
- Trial de novo proceeded on Wells Fargo’s unlawful detainer claim; Smiths again raised their defenses and counterclaims, which were again rejected or struck.
- Court treated the associate division’s disposition as incorporated into the May 2012 circuit court judgment, and affirmed Wells Fargo’s possession order as proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §534.210 is unconstitutional. | Smiths argue due process/dual-track rights—title cannot be barred. | Wells Fargo maintains statute is constitutional; limits to possession. | Not unconstitutional; §534.210 limits to possession, not title. |
| Whether §534.210 violates equal protection. | Smiths claim two-class system deprives defenses. | Classification rationally tied to summary possession objective. | Not violated; statute rationally related to its purpose. |
| Whether §534.210 is a valid procedural statute trumping rules. | Rules 55.32/55.08 would override the statute. | Statute is substantive, not superseded by procedural rules. | Valid; no conflict with procedural rules. |
| Whether §534.210 prevents challenges to standing or real-party status. | Smiths cannot attack Wells Fargo’s standing under the statute. | Standing challenges attacked title; barred by §534.210. | Bar on attacking title; standing challenges must be pursued separately. |
| Whether title remains relevant in unlawful detainer despite §534.210. | Title challenges should be allowed to defend possession. | Title not inquired in unlawful detainer; mere possession controls. | Title remains relevant to show possession; cannot determine title in detainer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (Mo.App.2001) (issues relating to title or equity cannot be raised in unlawful detainer)
- Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1972) (due process permits segregation of possession actions from title claims)
- Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 236 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1915) (Holmes; allowed separate action for title after possessory action)
- Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1923) (summary foreclosure; separate equitable defenses in separate action)
- McCartney’s Adm'x v. Alderson, 45 Mo. 35 (1869) (possession focus; title not determined in unlawful detainer)