Mortgagee Successfully Fights Off Attack On Constitutionality Of Missouri’s Unlawful Detainer Statute

The Defendants in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Smith, No. SC 92649, __S.W.3d__, (March 19, 2013), attacked the constitutionality of Missouri’s unlawful detainer statute, V.A.M.S §534.2 in an eviction action brought by the mortgagee following a foreclosure. Defendants’ chief argument was that the statute violated their federal and state substantive due process rights because it precludes them from raising any matters extraneous to the issue of possession. They complained that filing an eviction action created an irrebuttable presumption that the plaintiff had valid title which deprived them of a fundamental right to open courts under the Missouri Constitution as well as depriving them of their property and liberty interests without a meaningful hearing. They also argued that the statute violated their equal protection rights by creating two classes: plaintiffs, who by filing the action established title, and defendants, who were precluded from raising defenses or counterclaims. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the statute was not constitutionally infirm. It described the long history of the statute and the rationale used by other courts to determine the constitutionality of similar statutes. By its terms, forcible entry and detainer actions only decide the right of possession, not the validity of title or ownership. Therefore, there is no presumption that the plaintiff has legal title; it merely has a superior right to possession. The only property interest effected in a forcible entry and detainer action was the Defendants’ right to possess a home that had been foreclosed upon. Challenges to the more complex issues involving title may be pursued separately in an action contesting title. The equal protection claim fared no better. The court agreed with other authorities that the summary nature of the proceeding is consistent with the state’s purpose of establishing a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes over possession. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the statute’s prohibition on counterclaims based on issues other than possession was merely a procedural rule. The court held that the statute imposes substantive limitations that may be raised in an unlawful detainer action. The decision is noteworthy for the dissent in which Justice Teitelman agreed with the Defendants finding that the statute was unconstitutional because it deprives an occupant of the opportunity to be heard. He scoffed at the argument that defendants are not precluded from challenging title because they can raise that challenge in a different proceeding. No financially distressed homeowner would have the means to do so and this reality prevents a realistic and accurate assessment of the processes employed in such actions.

Download Related Document