Anheuser-Busch Employees' Credit Union v. Davis, ANHEUSER-BUSCH
| Decision Date | 20 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | ANHEUSER-BUSCH,No. 77461,77461 |
| Citation | 899 S.W.2d 868 |
| Parties | EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION, Respondent, v. Robert L. DAVIS, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert J. Selsor, Bruce R. Bartlett, St. Louis, for appellants.
Daniel L. Sailler, Kansas City, for respondent.
This case involves an appeal from the trial court's entry of partial summary judgment in favor of Anheuser-Busch Employees' Credit Union (Credit Union). We have jurisdiction because the constitutionality of a state statute is at issue. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3. Affirmed.
The property at issue in this case was purchased on December 14, 1984, by Robert Davis with a loan he received from the Credit Union. The loan was secured by a deed of trust executed in tandem with a promissory note in the amount of $33,750. The deed of trust, which was recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of St. Louis County on December 17, 1984, provided that the borrower agreed to pay all taxes and assessments imposed on the property. But, Mr. Davis did not pay the taxes due on the property, and, on August 26, 1991, the property was sold to William Glascow at a tax sale by the St. Louis County Collector for nonpayment of back taxes for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990. This was the third time the property had been offered for sale. Although notice of the sale was published in a local legal newspaper and written notice was sent to Robert Davis, no written notice of the sale was ever sent to the Credit Union.
On June 24, 1993, the Credit Union filed suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County seeking to quiet title and requesting a judicial foreclosure on its deed of trust. Only William Glascow, who purchased the property at the tax sale, filed an answer. On July 18, 1994, the Credit Union moved for summary judgment on its quiet title claim. The Credit Union argued that the failure of the St. Louis County Collector to provide written notice of the tax sale to the Credit Union violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the tax sale notice statute, section 140.405, RSMo 1994, did not require that the Credit Union be given notice, the Credit Union argued that it was unconstitutional. Although its constitutional challenge to section 140.405 was not raised in the Credit Union's original petition, the trial court granted the Credit Union's motion for leave to amend the petition to include the constitutional challenge. The trial court granted the Credit Union's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the constitutional issue was raised sufficiently early in the process and that section 140.405 was unconstitutional in failing to require notice to the Credit Union. Glascow appealed.
Glascow first argues that the Credit Union's constitutional claim was waived because it was not raised until the Credit Union moved for summary judgment. This claim is meritless. In Dye v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement, 811 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Mo. banc 1991), this Court explicitly rejected In this case, the trial court allowed the Credit Union to amend its original pleading, Glascow had the full opportunity to contest the constitutional issue at the summary judgment stage, and the trial court had the constitutional issue squarely presented and argued before granting summary judgment. The constitutional issue was not waived.
The Credit Union's due process argument boils down to the question of what notice must be given to a holder of a deed of trust in order for a tax sale to extinguish the holder's interest in the property. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your point of view), the answer is clear. The United States Supreme Court in Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), and this Court in Lohr v. Cobur Corporation, 654 S.W.2d 883...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell
...when the indenture giving rise to the assessments was created. Id. at 18.U.S. Bank and Arvest cite Anheuser–Busch Emps.' Credit Union v. Davis, 899 S.W.2d 868, 869 (Mo. banc 1995), where a lienholder's constitutionally protected property interest in the real estate required notice of a tax ......
-
Collector Revenue v. Parcels of Land Encumbered With Delinquent Land Tax Liens
...notice to the holder of a deed of trust or mortgage are not adequate to meet due process requirements. See Anheuser–Busch Employees' Credit Union v. Davis, 899 S.W.2d 868 (Mo. banc 1995); Lohr v. Cobur Corp., 654 S.W.2d 883 (Mo. banc 1983). This Court has also recognized that certified mail......
-
Carpenter v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
...be liberally allowed and constitutional claims can be asserted by amendment to the initial pleadings. See Anheuser-Busch Employees' Credit Union v. Davis, 899 S.W.2d 868, 869 (Mo. banc The plaintiffs alleged a violation of section 484.010 and asked for treble damages when the lawsuit was fi......
-
Foreclosure Liens for Delinquent Tax. by Action v. Parcels of Land Encumbered With Delinquent Land Tax Liens
...not, notice to mortgagees of sales which will extinguish their liens is constitutionally required. See, e.g., Anheuser-Busch Employees' Credit Union v. Davis, 899 S.W.2d 868, 869 (Mo. banc 1995) ("a mortgagee, whose interest in the property is publicly recorded, has a constitutionally prote......