QUIET TITLE BECOMES FOCAL POINT OF REMEDY: WHO CAN LEGALLY SIGN A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE?

FROM CASECLARITY

The court of appeals clearly focused its analysis on the underlying action as a weak foundation for the relief that was requested. The suit, a quiet title action, was essentially in the nature of a declaratory action. However, the opinion points out that because this action was missing essential elements (they did not use these exact words) of a controversy – that is, allegations that would make consideration of the dispute ripe for consideration – the matter was not ripe. They are telling you that your foundational allegations were just not there. That gave the other side grounds to seek dismissal. Rather than amend your complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim you pursued an appeal. The High Court will not likely take this case.

The court’s analysis and that which the other side seized upon is the fact that without an actual controversy the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not invoked or perfected and remains at rest. All they could do is to note the defect and dismiss. Of course all these courts are reluctant to actually say that. However, they did leave the door open and gave you hints about what might be used to state a claim.

It may have been better to frame out the legal issues in two parts. First, a DEC action that focuses on doubts about the rights of the parties on both sides of the dispute, alleging that there is no other remedy at law to resolve the issue. That issue would need to be resolved first, ideally on summary judgment after an adequate evidentiary foundation has been established. Prevailing on that first point opens the door to the second part which is the quiet title action. Most observers may read this and believe that it’s all the same and the two-part strategy is more work than necessary. However, going for the whole thing at once leads the result obtained here. The current climate in the judiciary just doesn’t have the tolerance for this “home run” kind of outcome.

A declaratory judgment action would smoke out the gaps in the missing chain of title and other related issues and strategically shifts the burden to the defendant. When that part breaks down for them, and it will where the mortgage loan has been securitized, it will begin to shape the path for the court to decide the rights of the parties. Once that happens, and the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, it opens the door to the the quiet title portion of the action which will be a perfunctory proceeding at that point.

Energies spent pursuing relief from the supreme court might be better spent crafting a new complaint, tight and focused, with a new strategy. There is little risk of any claim preclusion or res judicata here because the new dec action would be a different cause of action and because the prior ruling was grounded on lack of ripeness. They left the door open for you. Reread the opinion with an eye for the gaps they point out.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |