Bucklin Nat'l Bank v. Hayse Ranch
| Decision Date | 11 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 121,690,121,690 |
| Citation | 475 P.3d 1 |
| Parties | BUCKLIN NATIONAL BANK, Appellee, v. HAYSE RANCH, et al., Defendants, (Celia Pruitt), Intervenor/Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Josh V.C. Nicolay and Gordon B. Stull, of Stull, Beverlin, Nicolay & Haas LLC, of Pratt, for appellant.
Martin R. Ufford, of Hinkle Law Firm LLC, of Wichita, for appellee.
Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Bruns and Schroeder, JJ.
This appeal involves a dispute over ownership of real property. In 2018, Bucklin National Bank (Bucklin) filed a mortgage foreclosure action against several named defendants, including: Hayse Ranch, a partnership owned by Helen Hayse and Paul Hayse; Helen Hayse, who died intestate before the filing; Paul Hayse; and Helen Hayse's heirs. About a month after the start of the case, Celia Pruitt intervened in the case, asserting an ownership interest in the property stemming from her purchase and exercise of Helen Hayse's right of redemption in a previous foreclosure case.
The district court granted Bucklin's motion for summary judgment, finding that the assignment and exercise of the redemption rights did not transfer ownership of the property to Pruitt because there was no deed of conveyance. Pruitt now appeals, claiming she obtained legal title to the property under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2414. She asserts that the assignment gave her the exclusive means of regaining ownership over the property and that no deed of conveyance was necessary to transfer ownership. Because we find that there remains a material issue of fact concerning Pruitt's ownership rights, we reverse the summary judgment ruling dismissing Pruitt from the case and remand for further proceedings.
In August 2002, L.P.P. Mortgage Ltd. obtained a default judgment of foreclosure against, among others, Helen Hayse and her son Paul Hayse. Although that ruling involved multiple tracts of land, only one is relevant to this appeal: "[t]he Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of Section Three (3), Township Twenty-nine (29) South, Range Twenty (20) West of the 6th P.M.," in Kiowa County, Kansas (Subject Property). Central Bank purchased the Subject Property at a sheriff's sale in May 2003 for $170,000. The court issued an order confirming the sale and ordered a statutory redemption period of three months.
The day before the redemption period was set to end, Helen Hayse assigned her rights of redemption to Celia Pruitt for the sum of $100. The notarized assignment of rights of redemptions provided that "[t]his Assignment of Rights of Redemption is made pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2414(h) and it is the intent of Helen L. Hayse to assign and transfer to Celia Pruitt the same rights of redemption as to the above described real property that Helen L. Hayse owns." The same day, Pruitt filed a notice of exercise of right of redemption with the district court and deposited $172,685.76—the total owed to Central Bank—to redeem the Subject Property. That notice also stated, "All should take notice that Celia Pruitt is now owner of legal title to the above described real property."
In 2007, Pruitt had her attorney file an affidavit in the Kiowa County Register of Deeds office describing the Subject Property and declaring Pruitt to be the owner of the property by virtue of her acquisition of redemption rights in the prior foreclosure action and exercise of those rights.
In June 2015, Helen and Paul Hayse obtained a series of loans from Bucklin, secured in part by a real estate mortgage on the Subject Property. In January 2017, Helen Hayse died intestate. Ultimately, the Hayses defaulted on the loan and Bucklin initiated foreclosure proceedings in January 2018. Bucklin named several defendants in the petition, including Helen and Paul in their individual capacities, as well as Hayse Ranch—a partnership co-owned by Helen and Paul—and several of Helen's heirs. Bucklin also requested a decree "quieting the title of [Bucklin] against the Defendants and all persons claiming through [them] with regard to all personal property in which [Bucklin] has a security interest."
In February 2018, Pruitt moved pro se to intervene and filed an answer to the petition. In the filing, she asserted that she had bought and timely exercised Helen Hayse's right of redemption for the Subject Property in the previous foreclosure action. Pruitt requested an order naming her as the lawful owner of the Subject Property and declaring the same was "not lawfully subject to any liens, mortgages or encumbrances allegedly held by Bucklin National Bank, nor any other person or entity."
Bucklin moves for summary judgment.
In June 2018, Bucklin moved for a partial default judgment against the named defendants and, more relevant to this appeal, for summary judgment against Pruitt. The summary judgment motion indicated a hearing would be held in July 2018. In its memorandum in support of the motion, Bucklin noted no deed of conveyance was executed to transfer ownership of the Subject Property to Pruitt and that no Kansas authority supported "[her] position that a redemption alone transfers title of property from a mortgagor to a third party transferee." In contrast, Bucklin asserted that "other states have generally rejected [Pruitt]'s argument," citing 66 Am. Jur., Proof of Facts 3d 267 § 5, and Fidelity Mutual Savings Bank v. Mark , 112 Wash. 2d 47, 767 P.2d 1382 (1989). Attached to the summary judgment motion were an Owners and Encumbrances Report identifying Helen Hayse as the vested owner of the Subject Property as of December 4, 2017, as well as documents showing the assignment of Helen Hayse's right of redemption to Pruitt and Pruitt's exercise of that right. We note that the Owners and Encumbrances Report does not contain any information about who prepared it, and it is not signed by anyone. It is not on any corporate or personal letterhead. It also specifically notes that "[t]his report is not nor is it to be construed as, and Abstract of Title, title opinion, or title insurance policy." Yet this is the exhibit Bucklin relies on in its summary judgment motion to establish that Helen Hayse is the "vested owner" of the property.
About a month later, Pruitt filed an amended answer and a response to the motion for summary judgment. In the amended answer, she denied that Bucklin had the lawful right to foreclose on the property because she did not sign the purported mortgage and that Bucklin had "actual and adequate notice" of her claim of interest in the Subject Property. Lastly, she asserted that she was also the "rightful owner of the property in question by virtue of the Statute of Limitations and Adverse Possession."
In the response to the motion for summary judgment, Pruitt—filing pro se—denied all Bucklin's claims and asserted that one of the documents included with Bucklin's motion—an affidavit filed in 2007 by Pruitt's then-counsel with the Kiowa County Register of Deeds— She also asserted that the district court should not consider the Owners and Encumbrances Report because it was hearsay.
The district court issued two orders in July 2018, one granting Bucklin's motions for partial default judgment and one granting summary judgment to Bucklin as against Pruitt. The court foreclosed on the mortgage for the Subject Property; declared Bucklin to have "superior title" as to the "interest of Defendants, their heirs, legatees, devisees, trustees, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, and all person or entities claiming through said defendants"; and set a redemption period of three months.
As to Pruitt's interest, the court found and ordered:
Pruitt files posttrial motions for new trial and relief from the judgment.
About a month later, Pruitt, still pro se, filed a pro se motion for new trial, arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment. Then, in October 2018 after retaining counsel, she filed a motion for relief from the judgment and, over the course of next several months, filed supplemental motions that incorporated the same arguments. In general, Pruitt asserted she was entitled to a new trial or relief from the judgment because (1) Bucklin's motion for summary judgment ignored K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2414, which governs the statutory right of redemption in Kansas, and otherwise relied on improper authorities; (2) there were genuine issues of material fact remaining that precluded summary judgment, since Bucklin had failed to establish its own title or interest in the property; (3) Pruitt was a necessary party that should have been named from the outset and that she was forced to act quickly and intervene pro se, which unfairly prejudiced her and deprived her of a reasonable chance to retain counsel or fully present her arguments; and (4) the district court's summary judgment ruling contained inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. Shauck
...than focus on the weakness of their adversary's title as one would for an injunction proceeding. See Bucklin National Bank v. Hayse Ranch , 58 Kan. App. 2d 715, 721, 475 P.3d 1 (2020) ; see also K.S.A. 60-1002. Contextually, this means that had the district court made Dave and Emily aware o......
-
Bates v. Flemming
... ... the property with Armed Forces Bank NA (“AFB”) ... On January 30, 2006, Flemming ... that they have superior title. Bucklin Nat'l Bank v ... Hayse Ranch, 58 Kan.App.2d 715, ... ...