Consumer Law: Foreclosure – Unlawful Detainer – Notice

(1)Where a trial court granted judgment in favor of a homeowner who failed to vacate her home after a foreclosure sale and an unlawful detainer action brought by the bank, the homeowner’s testimony that she was not in default prior to the sale was a statutorily prohibited challenge to the validity of the sale and the merits of title, so her argument that her right to possession was superior to the bank’s was without merit, and a foreclosed borrower is not a tenant of her own property, so the bank brought its action against the homeowner as a borrower and not a tenant, and met its appropriate burden of proof.

(2)Where a homeowner who was sued for unlawful detainer challenged the adequacy of notice, the notice provided was adequate and the homeowner was a holdover borrower and not an intruder, so she was not entitled to receive written demand for the property.  

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Wilson  (MLW No. 65267/Case No. ED98885 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Quigless, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Farragut-Hemphill, J. (Eric D. Martin for appellant) (Gregory P. White for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)