Daily Development for Thursday, April 22, 2010
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu


SLANDER OF TITLE; LIS PENDENS: Even where position relied upon by party filing lis pendens is clearly wrong, and pending lawsuit will not result in an interest in the subject property, owner of property cannot succeed in a slander of title action unless it can show that the filing was “malicious.”  Stupidity is a defense. 

First Nat’l Bank of St. Louis v. Ricon, 2010 Westlaw 1223788 (Mo. App.  3//30/10) (not yet released for publication) 

Bank had an outstanding loan to Borrower secured by certain personal property, perfected through a UCC assignment for creditors, and by a deposit agreement whereby Borrower agreed to maintain its deposits with Bank, subject to setoff rights if it defaulted on the loan. 

Bank alleged that Borrower established new accounts in another bank and transferred funds from the accounts with Bank to those accounts, and that further that Borrower sold some of the personal property collateral and deposited the proceeds in the other bank.  It further alleged that Borrower used these funds in other bank to acquire certain real and personal property.

Bank filed a lawsuit for the amount of the loan, $350,000, and “such further relief, as the court deems just and proper”  It alleged all of the above facts.

In fact, it appeared that Borrower had acquired two homes financed 100%  with money borrowed from other sources than Bank, but that it may have used some of the monies in the accounts established in the other bank to make mortgage payments on those houses.

Bank filed notices of lis pendens against these two residences, alleging, that its pending lawsuit might result in its acquiring an interest in them.  It had not named or described these residences in its complaint, making only allusions to the fact that Borrower had acquired certain “real property” with money diverted from Bank’s collateral.

Borrower counterclaimed in Bank’s collection action for slander of title, alleging by affidavit that another lender had committed to make a refinancing loan for a lower interest rate on the two residences, but withdrew from that commitment when it learned of the lis pendens filings.  The trial court awarded summary judgment to Borrower on liability.

At trial on the issue of damages only, a jury awarded Borrower $250,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against Bank.  It   further awarded Borrower $40,000 in attorney’s fees.  The court also awarded Bank $375,000 (including accrued interest)  in its suit on the loan, but obviously this was cold comfort at this point.

On Bank’s appeal, the Missouri appellate court reversed, on grounds that it stated were very narrow.  Bank barely escaped from the liability.

Bank argued that the lis pendens filings were valid because indeed its lawsuit might support the creation of an interest in the properties.  Presumably (the court does not tell us) it was arguing that it could trace the converted collateral into these properties.  Unfortunately, its suit was for damages, and not for the establishment of an equitable lien or constructive trust in any real estate.  The mere request for “such relief as the court deems just and proper” was not enough to convert a lawsuit for damages into a claim for a property interest, particularly in undescribed real estate. 

Bank argued that Borrower’s naked allegation that it had been denied a valuable loan because of the lis pendens, was based upon hearsay evidence concerning the position of the other lender, and was inadequate to support summary judgment.  The appeals court noted that Bank had failed to introduce any evidence to refute Borrower’s allegation, so the affidavit was sufficient.  There had been a wrongful filing of lis pendens and Borrower had been injured.

But Borrower foundered on its attempt to establish that there was an adequate basis for summary judgment on the final requirement for slander of title - that the lis pendens was filed with malicious intent.  Here, Borrower relied upon a letter from Bank’s counsel in which it refused to release the lis pendens.”  The contents of the letter proved relevant to both sides of the controversy:

“[W]e recorded the notice lis pendens with the reasonable belief that the collateral securing the loans in issue were used by the [Borrower] to make payments on, purchase and/or finance other assets such as the real property against which the notices were recorded.  This [sic] the Bank’s collateral were [sic] used by [Borrower] to make payment toward., or on, their real property.  To that end, your statement that our notice lis pendens was filed to the [Borrower’s] real property to preserve the Bank’s right to dispose of or have a lien against the same is quite correct, but clearly was not the only reason the notice was filed.”

Bank relied on the first half of the letter, Borrower on the second half, where counsel agreed that a purpose of the lis pendens was to have the property available in the event of judgment in the lawsuit on the note.  Tying up property for this purpose is malicious.  But tying it up because you have a reasonable belief in establishing an equitable lien is not. 

The appeals court ruled that, although the question was close, the issue of malice ought to go to a jury, so it reversed summary judgment as to liability. 

Comment 1: The court commented that a slander of title action would not be actionable if it was “innocently made out of stupidity or ignorance.”  It concluded absolutely that the filed lawsuit would not create an interest the subject properties, so one wonders it was accusing the Bank’s counsel of ignorance, stupidity, both or neither.  You be the judge.

Comment 2: In any event, since the Borrower’s lawyer was able to wring a $500,000 punitive damages judgment out of the first jury, Bank’s counsel at this point would be wise to conclude that the risk of a finding that its lis pendens was maliciously filed is quite likely, and perhaps it would want to settle this case if it can. 

Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters.  The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list.  Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor or
individual contributors and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.

Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.

DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.

To subscribe, send the message

subscribe Dirt [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters.  Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.”  But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list.  If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message

subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law.  Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.

All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report.  This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, ACMA members and members of the NAR.   Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee  at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org   ABA members also can access prior and current editions of this report on the ABA RPTE section website.

DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://dirt.umkc.edu/


 

*************************************

Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.

To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610

If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html

To review our privacy statement, go to http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.

If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.