PAUL C. WILSON, Judge.
William and Susan Smith lost their home in a foreclosure sale. When they failed to vacate, the foreclosure purchaser, Wells Fargo, sued for unlawful detainer. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo, and the Smiths appeal. The Smiths argue that, because section 534.210, RSMo,
The Smiths purchased their home in 2005 using, in part, the proceeds of a $100,000 loan from Argent Mortgage Company. The Smiths executed a promissory note to Argent and a deed of trust containing a power of sale authorizing the trustee, after notice to the Smiths, to foreclose and sell the home in the event of an uncured default on the promissory note.
In 2010, a successor trustee published notice that the Smiths' home would be sold in foreclosure and sent the Smiths notice of the sale by registered mail. The sale occurred on February 23, 2010, at which Wells Fargo purchased the property. When the Smiths failed to vacate their home after receiving notice to do so, Wells Fargo sued the Smiths for unlawful detainer on March 29, 2010, in the associate circuit division of the circuit court of Jefferson County.
Wells Fargo alleged that it purchased the Smiths' home at a trustee's sale and that it was entitled to immediate possession of the same.
The Smiths filed an answer in which they denied Wells Fargo's allegations. In their answer, the Smiths also asserted 31 individual affirmative defenses. Rather than recite them verbatim, the following is the description of their self-styled "affirmative defenses" provided by the Smiths in this Court:
(App. Br. at 14 (citing L.F. 14-20).)
The Smiths also asserted four counterclaims. First, the Smiths sought actual and punitive damages because Wells Fargo had been negligent in purchasing foreclosure properties (including the Smiths' home) it knew, or should have known, had been improperly foreclosed upon, causing the Smiths "economic and emotional" injuries. Second, the Smiths sought actual and punitive damages because Wells Fargo acquired title to the Smiths' home "unjustly" and it would be "unjust for [Wells Fargo] to retain the subject property or to evict [the Smiths] from the property." Third, the Smiths sought actual damages because erroneous charges had been added to their loan balance, their escrow fund was not accurate, and Wells Fargo (or its predecessors) had not given the Smiths "full credit" for all payments. Finally, the Smiths sought declaratory judgments that (a) Wells Fargo does not have valid title to the property, (b) the foreclosure and sale of their home was invalid, (c) Wells Fargo is not a bona fide purchaser for value, and (d) the Smiths have the right to "assert applicable affirmative defenses and counterclaims." (L.F. 20-23.)
Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the Smiths' 31 "affirmative defenses" and four counterclaims on the ground that they exceeded the statutory scope of issues that may be litigated in an unlawful detainer action under section 534.210. The associate division granted this motion, citing Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772, 774 (Mo.App.2001) (issues "relating to title or matters of equity, such as mistake, estoppel and waiver cannot be interposed as a defense" to an unlawful detainer action) (quotation marks omitted).
Wells Fargo also moved for summary judgment on its unlawful detainer claim. The Smiths responded to Wells Fargo's statement of uncontroverted material
In the de novo proceedings on Wells Fargo's unlawful detainer claim, Wells Fargo again moved for summary judgment. The Smiths responded to Wells Fargo's statement of uncontroverted material facts and, again, filed their "additional statement of uncontroverted material facts" pertaining to the issues raised in their affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Wells Fargo responded to the Smiths' "additional statement" but also moved to strike that pleading, citing Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika.
On May 12, 2012, more than two years after this "summary" unlawful detainer action began, the court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo. The Smiths appeal, and, because they challenge the validity of section 534.210, this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution.
Also worthy of note are two related lawsuits brought by the Smiths and one lawsuit the Smiths failed to file. First, in April 2012, the Smiths sued Wells Fargo in the Jefferson County circuit court alleging wrongful foreclosure and various other claims.
Second, in August 2011, the Smiths filed a "Petition for Reformation of Judgment, Nunc Pro Tunc, Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive and Related Relief" against Wells Fargo in Jefferson County circuit court. That action sought to reform the judgment entered in a 2007 action between these same parties arising out of an earlier foreclosure and sale of the Smiths' home. Because Wells Fargo had determined that this foreclosure was improper, it filed the 2007 action to rescind the sale and restore the status quo ante. The 2007 action culminated in a judgment declaring that, after rescinding the sale, the Smiths owned the home in fee simple subject to the first lien interest held by Wells Fargo as the beneficiary of the Smiths' deed of trust. The Smiths agreed to the 2007 judgment before it was entered and did not appeal from it. Yet, in August 2011, the Smiths sued Wells Fargo to "reform" this 2007 judgment by removing the declarations concerning Wells Fargo's lien and its status as the current beneficiary of the Smiths' deed of trust. In their reformation case, unlike their wrongful foreclosure suit, the Smiths asked the circuit court to stay Wells Fargo's unlawful detainer action. This request was denied, however, and the Smiths sought no review of that
Finally, despite the bevy of actions between the Smiths and Wells Fargo, one action the Smiths did
Before addressing the merits of the Smiths' appeal, the Court must assure itself that it has appellate jurisdiction and that the Smiths' arguments were properly preserved for appellate review. During the trial de novo proceedings on Wells Fargo's unlawful detainer claim, the Smiths made no effort to re-assert the affirmative defenses and counterclaims that the associate division dismissed prior to its September 2011 judgment for Wells Fargo. Therefore, unless the Smiths' responsive pleadings were restored
On the other hand, if the Smiths' counterclaims and affirmative defenses were restored automatically in the trial de novo, Wells Fargo took no action to have the circuit court dispose of them. More important, nothing in the circuit court's May 2012 judgment explicitly resolved the Smiths' counterclaims. Ordinarily, a judgment that does not dispose of a counterclaim is not a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal. See Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Mo. banc 2011) ("final judgment is defined as one that resolves all issues in a case, leaving nothing for future determination") (citations omitted).
However, neither the jurisdictional requirement of a final judgment nor concerns regarding preservation of the issues presents an insuperable barrier to a substantive resolution of the issues raised in the Smiths' appeal. Instead, it seems clear that both parties and the court proceeded throughout the trial de novo as though the associate division's disposition of the Smiths' affirmative defenses and counterclaims had been adopted by the circuit court. For example, in its motion for summary judgment during the de novo proceedings, Wells Fargo argued that section 534.210 prohibited the Smiths from asserting any equitable defenses and counterclaims. (L.F. 434.) And, in responding to Wells Fargo's motion, the Smiths argued that "
Accordingly, this Court concludes that the associate division's disposition of the Smiths' affirmative defenses and counterclaims under section 534.210 was adopted by the court in the trial de novo and implicitly incorporated into the May 2012 judgment. See Glick v. Glick, 372 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo. 1963) ("if the judgment by implication necessarily carries with it a
As set forth below, each of the Smiths' attacks on the constitutional validity of section 543.210 is based upon a fundamental misconception regarding statutory unlawful detainer actions. Accordingly, a review of the history of these claims is necessary to an understanding of their nature and purpose. This history, in turn, informs the Court's analysis and conclusions.
Unlawful detainer actions first were recognized here in the territorial laws, before the State of Missouri was created. Predecessors of this cause of action, however, have existed for almost 900 years. To be sure, the longevity of a practice does not — by itself — resolve the question of whether that practice comports with the requirements of due process. See Note, A Pedigree for Due Process? Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 56 Mo. L.Rev. 353 (1991) (discussing the extent to which a settled practice should, on that fact alone, be found to comport with due process). Even so, the Smiths' attack on the limited scope and summary nature of statutory unlawful detainer claims must overcome a strong presumption of constitutionality in light of the fact that such actions are not merely older than — but several times as old as — either of the constitutions they supposedly violate.
From the earliest days of the common law, a party entitled to possession of real property might use self-help, including force, to oust anyone wrongfully in possession. Krevet v. Meyer, 24 Mo. 107, 110-11 (1856) (en banc). Such uses of force often provoked forceful responses, particularly (though not exclusively) from those who believed they were rightfully in possession of the property. Accordingly, the courts of King Henry II circa 1166 began to recognize that "a method of quickly, forcefully and judicially restoring people to the peaceful possession of their land was a great advantage for the public order[.]" Van Caenegem, The Birth of the Common Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 1973), at 40-41.
From the outset, however, such actions were confined to the question of possession and did not purport to address questions of ownership or validity of title. "Leaving aside the intricate question of the greater right, or ownership as we might say now, [the writ of novel disseisin] aimed at quickly undoing recent unwarranted disturbances of seisin [possession], carried out unjustly and without judgment." Id. at 44 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, claims regarding the validity of title or ownership were excluded and had to be raised in a separate action. Id. ("people had known for centuries that seisin and right — posseessio and proprietas being the corresponding Roman notions — were two different things and that measures concerning seisin
Over the intervening centuries, unlawful detainer actions have been recognized in nearly every time and place influenced by the English common law. In Missouri, the first unlawful detainer statute was enacted in 1813 by the General Assembly of the territory of Missouri.
From its inception, Missouri's unlawful detainer statute incorporated the substantive limitations of such actions that had been a part of the original writ. The territorial legislature provided that an unlawful detainer plaintiff need only prove "that he was lawfully possessed of the premises, and that the defendant unlawfully entered into or detained the same from him or them." Id. at 268. And, to ensure that unlawful detainer actions determined only questions of possession, the statute instructed: "[N]or shall any [unlawful detainer] judgment be a bar to any other action at law, brought by either party, either to try the right of the property or for intermediate damages'" Id. at 269 (emphasis added).
Therefore, even before Missouri became a state, Missouri law recognized that claims for unlawful detainer do not — and cannot — determine ownership of, or validity of title to, real property. Id. It was equally clear from the beginning that any claims regarding the validity of title or seeking damages related to invalid assertions of title must be brought in a separate action.
These limitations on the substantive scope of Missouri's unlawful detainer actions find current expression in section 534.200, RSMo, which provides: "The complainant shall not be compelled to make further proof of the forcible entry or detainer than that
In light of the statutory limitations on the substantive scope of unlawful detainer actions, Missouri courts repeatedly have stated that equitable defenses and counterclaims are not permitted in response to such claims.
Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Rest. Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Mo.App.1993) (citations omitted). See also V.F.W. Post No. 7222 v. Summersville Saddle Club, 788 S.W.2d 796,
Indeed, so often has this been said that it led some to conclude there was a specialized procedural limitation applicable to such actions, i.e., the "no counterclaim rule." See Sweere, 68 J. Mo. B. at 164-65. This is incorrect. To be sure, chapter 534 contains procedures applicable only to unlawful detainer actions. Gary Realty Co. v. Kelly, 278 Mo. 450, 214 S.W. 92, 97 (1919) ("statutes providing for the practice and proceedings in forcible entry and detainer constitute a special and preclusive code [and are] not to be measured or determined by the ordinary rules and proceedings in civil cases"). This remains true, even though section 534.060 now provides that these procedures are to be augmented, in certain cases, by the procedures in chapter 517. But these procedural statutes have nothing to do with the limitations on the substantive scope of unlawful detainer actions referred to in the cases cited above.
Instead, those substantive limitations are found in sections 534.200 and 534.210, and they are the source of the prohibition against a defendant raising equitable defenses and/or challenges to the validity of the plaintiff's title in an unlawful detainer action. Thus, these limitations are substantive, not procedural, and they apply regardless of how the defendant attempts to raise such issues, i.e., whether by affirmative defense, counterclaim, or otherwise. See Beeler v. Cardwell, 33 Mo. 84, 86 (1862) ("but the question of right does not at all arise in this action of forcible entry and detainer, and the defendants cannot
As explained above, statutory unlawful detainer actions do not, cannot, and never were intended to resolve questions of ownership or the validity of title. Instead, these actions resolve only the immediate right to possession and, then, only between the parties to the case. Prendergast v. Graverman, 166 Mo.App. 33, 147 S.W. 1094, 1096 (1912) ("[a]s has been decided in cases without number, the matter of title is of no moment whatever in actions of unlawful detainer — the disturbance is to the possession, and the case must be determined on the relative rights of possession between the parties"). The Smiths are not barred from raising equitable theories, claims of wrongful foreclosure, or other challenges to Wells Fargo's title. However, they are barred from trying to litigate such issues in response to Wells Fargo's limited action for possession under chapter 534. The Smiths must litigate these claims in a separate proceeding, just as they are doing now in their wrongful foreclosure lawsuit in Jefferson County. Moreover, nothing in chapter 534 prevented the Smiths from raising any or all of their claims
In their first point, the Smiths claim that section 534.210 creates an "irrebuttable presumption that title is proven merely by filing an unlawful detainer[.]" (App. Br. at 21.) The Smiths claim this "irrebuttable presumption" violates state and federal "substantive due process" guarantees because it deprives them of fundamental rights under the "open courts" provision of the Missouri Constitution.
The Smiths' argument is based upon a flawed premise. Nothing in chapter 534 establishes an "irrebuttable presumption" that Wells Fargo's title is valid. To the contrary, section 534.210 provides that the validity of title is not relevant. Thus, not only was there no "irrebuttable presumption" that Wells Fargo's title to the Smiths' home is valid, there is nothing in the circuit court's judgment that suggests — or can be construed to declare — that the validity of Wells Fargo's title has been decided. See Meier v. Thorpe, 822 S.W.2d 556, 559 (Mo.App.1992) (trial court dismissed wrong foreclosure action on res judicata grounds resulting from prior unlawful detainer action — appellate court reversed because "it was not possible for the defendants in the first action [for unlawful detainer], appellants here, to have challenged the validity of the trustee's deed which the [respondents] received as a result of the foreclosure sale") (emphasis added). Instead, the judgment declares only that Wells Fargo's right to possess the property is superior to the Smiths'
The Smiths also argue that section 534.210 violates procedural due process because its limitation on the scope of unlawful detainer actions deprived them of "property and liberty interests" without a meaningful hearing. The Smiths claim: "To the extent they prohibit inquiry into title, courts across Missouri are haphazardly expelling homeowners from their homes, including those homeowners who could demonstrate superior title." (App. Br. at 38.) First, this Court rejects the Smiths' assertion that Missouri's courts are acting "haphazardly" by enforcing the substantive limitations enacted by the elected branches of this government in sections 534.200 and 534.210.
Second, this argument again proceeds from a flawed premise that the outcome of an unlawful detainer action turns on which party is able to "demonstrate superior title." These actions are about possession, not title. Therefore, the
As noted above, a due process challenge to the legislature's decision to separate actions concerning possession from actions concerning ownership or the validity of title seems doubtful in light of the fact that this separation was a fixture of the law centuries before the Missouri and federal constitutions (and their respective due process clauses) were penned. Thus, it was no surprise when the United States Supreme Court applied due process principles to this separation and found no cause for constitutional alarm.
In Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 92 S.Ct. 862, 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), the appellant challenged Oregon's unlawful detainer statute which allowed a landlord to recover possession if the tenant held over or violated
Guided by no lesser light than Justice Holmes, Lindsey noted that actions which were limited to possession and that challenges to the validity of the claimant's title consistently had passed constitutional muster:
Id. at 67-68, 92 S.Ct. 862 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Smiths' procedural due process claims are denied under both the United States and Missouri constitutions. See State ex rel. Houska v. Dickhaner, 323 S.W.3d 29, 33 n. 4 (Mo. banc 2010) ("Missouri's Due Process Clause `parallels its federal counterpart, and in the past this Court has treated the state and federal Due Process Clauses as equivalent.'") (quoting Jamison v. State, Division of Family Services, 218 S.W.3d 399, 405 (Mo. banc 2007)).
The Smiths' second point asserts that section 534.210 violates state and federal equal protection guarantees. Again, this argument proceeds from the same flawed premise which dooms the due process arguments.
The Smiths contend that section 534.210 creates two classes: (1) plaintiffs who, like Wells Fargo, "are able to
Moreover, the decision to limit the substantive scope of unlawful detainer actions strictly to the question of possession does not violate equal protection protections. This limitation has been a part of unlawful detainer actions for nearly 900 years. These actions were — and still are — intended to allow possessory claims to be
Lindsey, 405 U.S. at 70-74, 92 S.Ct. 862 (emphasis added).
The purpose of Missouri's unlawful detainer action is the same, and the decision to pursue that purpose by enacting a summary procedure, and by requiring a defendant's challenges to the validity of the plaintiff's title (or other equitable defenses) to be pursued separately, is no less constitutional than the statutes at issue in Lindsey or the cases relied upon therein. See Krevet, 24 Mo. at 109-10 (the "principle on which this proceeding [for unlawful detainer] is founded is not novel; ... it prevailed in England and in sister states. That principle is, that persons shall not take the law into their own hands, but shall assert their rights by action in a peaceable manner, and not by force").
Accordingly, the Smiths' claim that section 534.210 violates state and federal equal protection guarantees is denied.
In their third point, the Smiths contend that "Missouri Rules 55.32(a) and 55.08 are procedural in nature and therefore trump conflicting aspects of § 534.210 RSMo." (App. Br. at 23.) As with the constitutional arguments above, this argument fails because it proceeds from a false premise. Neither section 534.210 nor any other provision of chapter 534 precludes counterclaims or affirmative defenses as such. Instead, sections 534.200 and 534.210 impose substantive limitation on the issues that may be raised in an unlawful detainer action. A defendant may not violate these substantive limits regardless of whether the extraneous issues are raised by counterclaim, affirmative defense, or other procedural device.
Here, the Smiths sought to assert counterclaims seeking money damages for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The Smiths also sought declaratory judgments that Wells Fargo did not have valid title to the Smiths' home, that the foreclosure was invalid, and that Wells Fargo was not a bona fide purchaser for
Because there is no conflict between sections 534.200 and 534.210, which establish the
The Smiths' final point contends that section 534.210 prevents them from challenging Wells Fargo's "standing" to bring this action and/or its status as the "real party in interest." (App. Br. at 24.) Again, this claim fails because it proceeds from a mistaken premise.
Nothing in section 534.210 prohibits the Smiths from challenging Wells Fargo's "standing" or attempting to prove it is not the "real party in interest." Instead, sections 534.200 and 534.210 prohibit the Smiths from attacking the merits of Wells Fargo's title. However, this prohibition applies to all attacks on the validity of the plaintiff's title, equitable or otherwise, and it applies regardless of whether the attack is made in the form of an affirmative defense, a counterclaim, or otherwise. See Walker, 182 S.W.3d at 269 (defendant cannot avoid prohibition of section 534.210 by characterizing a claim that plaintiff fraudulently obtained title as a challenge to plaintiff's "mode" of obtaining title). Thus, sections 534.200 and 534.210 prohibit challenges to the plaintiff's "standing" (or its status as the "real party in interest") only where those challenges are, in substance, attacks on the validity of the plaintiff's title. State ex rel. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Chamberlain, 372 S.W.3d 24, 30 (Mo.App.2012) ("creatively framed `standing' argument is indistinguishable from an equitable claim requiring inquiry into the merits of [plaintiff's] title").
The Smiths' challenges to Wells Fargo's "standing" and status as the "real party in interest" are merely re-packaged attacks on the validity of Wells Fargo's title. (See
The history of unlawful detainer actions in Missouri and throughout the English common law, the plain language of Missouri's statutes, and the holdings of numerous Missouri cases provide both an unambiguous answer to the Smiths' ill-founded claims and clear guidance to homeowners in similar situations. Even where there may be latent defects in the foreclosure purchaser's title (or in the chain of interests preceding it) sufficient to support a claim that the purchaser's title is void, and even where there may be an adequate basis at law or equity to set aside the trustee's deed or the foreclosure sale which led to it, a foreclosure purchaser is entitled to bring an unlawful detainer action using the deed as evidence of the
As a result of this statutory limitation on the substantive scope of unlawful detainer actions, homeowners who believe their foreclosures are improper must act to protect themselves if they do not want to lose possession of their home. They must either: (1) sue to enjoin the foreclosure sale from occurring, or (2) if the sale has occurred and the buyer has sued for unlawful detainer, bring a separate action challenging the foreclosure purchaser's title and seek a stay of the unlawful detainer action in that separate case.
This is not new, and the foregoing options — as well as the risks of the approach taken by the Smiths — are well established. See, e.g., Morris v. Davis, 334 Mo. 411, 66 S.W.2d 883, 889 (1933) (unlawful detainer defendant who "relies and depends upon equitable defenses
The central issue in an unlawful detainer case is possession, not title. Undoubtedly, the source of any confusion as to the relevance of title in actions brought by foreclosure sale purchases such as Wells Fargo is that such a plaintiff's proof
Chamberlain, 372 S.W.3d at 31.
However, in such cases, the foreclosure purchaser's right to possession is based upon the
Therefore, unless a homeowner succeeds in preventing the foreclosure sale or in having the purchaser's unlawful detainer stayed, most unlawful detainer actions brought by foreclosure purchasers will be simple, swift, and difficult to contest.
This is not to say that every unlawful detainer claim necessarily will succeed, however. It does not tax the judicial imagination to hypothesize cases in which the plaintiff's minimal burden of proving the superior right to possession can be defeated. See, e.g., Pentz v. Kuester, 41 Mo. 447, 449 (1867) ("[t]hough the tenant could not dispute the title of the landlord, nor set up a paramount title or an adverse possession against either the grantor or grantee, nor the court inquire into the
Here, the Smiths do not contest the fact that Wells Fargo is the purchaser named in the trustee's deed, nor could they. Instead, the Smiths attempted to argue that Wells Fargo's deed is invalid because the grantor was not the trustee named in the original deed of trust. However, this argument fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Wells Fargo's right to possession.
The Smiths' deed of trust explicitly permitted successor trustees and required that any such appointments be recorded in the same county as the deed of trust. The grantor on the deed Wells Fargo purchased in the foreclosure sale, which deed was entitled plainly as a "Successor Trustee's Deed Under Foreclosure," had been appointed pursuant to a document recorded in Jefferson County on October 20, 2005. (L.F. 563.) This document recites that the appointment was made by Wells Fargo as the successor in interest to Argent, the original lender.
Therefore, Wells Fargo's summary judgment motion, relying principally on the trustee's deed from the foreclosure sale, established each of the material facts necessary to establish its right to immediate possession of the property in this unlawful detainer action. Shorn of their many attacks on the validity of Wells Fargo's title, the Smiths' response to Wells Fargo's summary judgment motion failed to raise a genuine issue as to these material facts. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo was appropriate.
Rather than spending more than two years trying to raise wrongful foreclosure and other claims against Wells Fargo in this unlawful detainer action — where such claims plainly have no relevance and where they are, just as plainly, barred by section 534.210 — the Smiths might have raised those claims in a separate action much earlier than they did and requested that the wrongful foreclosure court stay the unlawful detainer action until they were decided. Moreover, the Smiths might have raised their issues in a suit to enjoin the foreclosure sale altogether. Having done neither, the Smiths cannot contend that the outcome of Wells Fargo's unlawful detainer action is unfair or unexpected.
The Court is not unaware of the marked increase in residential foreclosures, nor unmoved
In any event, it is for the Governor and the General Assembly — and not this Court — to judge the wisdom or fairness of chapter 534 in its current form. This Court's responsibility is to judge the constitutionality of these venerable statutes in light of the challenges raised in this case. Because section 534.21 is not unconstitutional, the circuit court did nor err in granting Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment. The judgment is affirmed.
RUSSELL, BRECKENRIDGE, FISCHER, STITH and DRAPER, JJ., concur; TEITELMAN, C.J., dissents in separate opinion filed.
RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Chief Justice.
The principal opinion holds that section 534.210
Section 534.210 provides that the "merits of the title shall in nowise be inquired into...." The practical impact is that the unlawful detainer defendant is prohibited from disputing the dispositive issue of title. A basic precept of due process is that one should have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The opportunity to be heard presupposes a right to be heard on those matters necessary to defend the legal rights at issue. The purpose of section 534.210 is to prohibit the unlawful detainer defendant from disputing the plaintiff's case or asserting his or her own proof of title, no matter how convincing and compelling that proof may be. This means that a bank or investor can evict an entire family from its home based on untested allegations. The homeowner can and will be heard, they just cannot say anything practically pertinent to the defense of their legal rights.
Wells Fargo notes that homeowners can fully protect their rights by simply filing a separate action contesting the validity of the alleged title. Conspicuously absent from this argument is any recognition of reality. In reality, homeowners facing an unlawful detainer action are highly unlikely to have the financial means to bear the legal costs of a separate action or, for that matter, any action at all. There are the legal fees. There are the double damages owed to the plaintiff pursuant to section 534.330. There is the bond in amount of the double damages and lost rents. Section 534.380. In short, there is no way that a financially distressed homeowner
