Citifinancial Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Beasley, No. W2006-00386-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 1/11/2007)
| Decision Date | 11 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. W2006-00386-COA-R3-CV.,W2006-00386-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC. v. AUGUSTUS BEASLEY, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Sheila L. Robinson-Beasley, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Augustus Beasley and Sheila Robinson-Beasley.
Jason S. Mangrum and Katherine Kellogg Kuhn, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, CitiFinancial Mortgage Company, Inc.
David R. Farmer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. Frank Crawford, P.J., W.S., and Alan E. Highers, J., joined.
Appellants Augustus and Sheila Beasley (the Beasleys) seek to challenge the denial of their request to appeal an adverse unlawful detainer judgment to circuit court and to set aside the foreclosure of their residence. Specifically, the Beasleys appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to CitiFinancial Mortgage, Inc. (Citi) and denial of their petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, filed after the deadline for appealing the judgment as of right. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it did not set forth sufficient merits for removal to circuit court for a trial de novo. In the petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, the Beasleys advanced as grounds for review the insufficiency of funds for filing a timely appeal and premature foreclosure on their residence in violation of the deed of trust. On appeal, they contend these allegations constituted sufficient merits as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-129. We reverse and remand.
The Appellants, Augustus and Sheila Beasley (Mr. Beasley, Ms. Beasley, or the Beasleys), defaulted on a loan secured by their residence and received notice of default from CitiFinancial Mortgage Company, Inc. (Citi), holder of the deed of trust and loan, by facsimile dated July 29, 2004. The facsimile correspondence, "per requested," included the amount required to cure the default and indicated that the reinstatement figures would be "good to [August 12, 2004]." The Beasleys did not cure the default, and the foreclosure sale occurred on August 13, 2004, at the Shelby County courthouse. Citi purchased the residence for $248,606.73.
The Beasleys refused to vacate the residence. Citi obtained a detainer warrant on August 24, 2004, which was posted at the Beasleys' residence on the third attempt at service. A copy was then mailed to the Beasleys.
At the General Sessions detainer hearing on September 27, 2004, Citi obtained a judgment for possession. The Beasleys concede in their memorandum opposing summary judgment that they did not appear at the detainer hearing. Nor did they appeal the General Sessions judgment. Instead, slightly less than a month later, they filed a petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-1291 on October 21, 2004, in Shelby County Circuit Court. In the petition, the Beasleys alleged that they did not have the funds available to post the bond for a timely appeal and that they were unaware of Citi's intent to repossess the home until October 20, 2004, the evening before filing their petition.
In January 2005, Citi filed a motion for summary judgment in response to the Beasleys' petition and appended a Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute. In the statement, Citi recited the relevant facts supporting the judgment in the detainer action, yet omitted the relevant facts, if any, pertaining to the Beasleys' petition. Nowhere in its filings does Citi mention the date of notice of default. On February 25, 2005, a hearing on the matter occurred in Shelby County Circuit Court before Judge Rita Stotts, who announced that she would recuse herself in the matter. The same day, the Beasleys filed a motion for leave to amend the original petition, a proposed amended petition setting forth the facts pertinent to the wrongful foreclosure allegation, a statement of material facts in dispute, and a "Responsive Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment."
On August 8, 2005, upon motion by Citi and by agreement of the parties, venue for the hearing changed to Tipton County. The Tipton County Circuit Court conducted the summary judgment hearing on January 12, 2006. The Statement of Evidence or Proceedings filed by the Beasleys indicates that they argued the issue of wrongful foreclosure before the court on January 12, 2006. The record also reveals that the Beasleys re-filed all previous filings, including the proposed amended petition, in Tipton County on the next day, even though the transfer of venue occurred after the filings had been submitted to the court in Shelby County. They also provided, "as promised," a Memorandum of Law with attachments, another copy of the proposed amended petition, and case law in support of their argument, directly to the judge by letter dated January 12, 2006. In its order of January 26, 2006, the court found that the Beasleys had not stated sufficient merits in the petition and accordingly granted summary judgment to Citi. The order referenced the fact of foreclosure, the detainer action, the Beasleys' refusal to vacate, the filing of the petition, and the insufficient allegations therein. Although based "upon the entire record," the order did not reference the amended petition or the Beasleys' motion for leave to amend the petition.
On appeal, the Beasleys restate their contentions of insufficient funds for a timely appeal and of wrongful foreclosure. The Beasleys contend that, had Citi adhered to the terms of the deed of trust by exercising the power of sale no sooner than thirty (30) days after tendering notice of default, they could have cured the default and reinstated the loan.
On appeal, the Beasleys raise the issue, as we perceive it, of whether the trial court erred in dismissing their petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas on the grounds of insufficient merits. Citi, on the other hand, restates the issue as whether the trial court erred in granting Citi's motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court granted summary judgment in the absence of disputed material facts, the parties on appeal present only questions of law. We review questions of pure law de novo with no presumption of correctness for the ruling of the trial court below. Inmon v. Hadley, 2006 WL 2507188, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Campbell v. Fla. Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996)).
The resolution of this case requires us to answer three questions: first, whether the trial court properly considered the Beasleys' amended petition; second, what a petitioner for writs of certiorari and supersedeas must show to obtain review of an unlawful detainer judgment; and third, whether wrongful foreclosure is a meritorious defense to an unlawful detainer action.
We now address the threshold issue of whether the trial court properly considered the Beasleys' amended petition. Resolution of this issue proves determinative because the original petition lacked sufficient merits2 to support a trial de novo, whereas the amendment added wrongful foreclosure, a potentially meritorious defense. We conclude, on procedural grounds, that the amended petition was properly before the trial court.
The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure govern appeals taken from general sessions courts to circuit courts. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 1. According to the Rules, filings addressing the court may take one of two forms: pleadings or motions. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7. A pleading that sets forth a claim for relief must include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief" and a demand for relief. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. The Rules limit the types of pleadings allowed and distinguish them from motions. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7 (). A motion, on the other hand, is "an application to the court for an order" that must be in writing (unless made during a hearing or trial), state its grounds with sufficient particularity, and identify the relief or order requested. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7.02.
As contemplated by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion is not a pleading. Robert Banks, Jr. & June F. Entman, Tennessee Civil Procedure § 5.1(a), at 5-7 (2d ed. 2004) (); id.§ 5.1(e), at 5-11 ( ). Although reasonable persons might differ as to whether this type of petition is a motion or a pleading, we need not make this esoteric distinction here. The petition, whether treated as a pleading or a motion, should have been amended.
No provision in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the amendment of motions. Banks & Entman, supra, § 5.1(e), at 5-14. In general, Tennessee courts will allow for a motion's amendment so long as there has been no ruling on the original motion. Id. at 5-15. In this case, the court had obviously not ruled on the petition (construed as the original motion). Moreover, the record on appeal reveals that the proposed amendment was in the possession of Citi for almost one year before the hearing, was filed with the Shelby County Circuit Court Clerk prior to the transfer of venue, and was argued at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial