“Because I said so” or “because I already did it” is not a recognizable legal ground for possession of property even after the forced sale of the property. In an action for possession of property, the taker must establish that it is the legal owner and that the ownership was obtained lawfully and properly. The fact that a prior judgment was entered allowing the foreclosure sale is not dispositive.
The “presumed facts” are directly contrary to the actual facts. Or, as I have stated it in other circumstances, the money trail does not match the paper trail. There are no real transactions in most instances.
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
For ten years — about the same amount of time that I said the rescission is valid upon mailing and did not require lawsuit or tender — I have advocated and encouraged lawyers for homeowners faced with eviction, writ of possession, or unlawful detainer to adopt a simple logic. Eviction is proper when the owner and possessor merely leases the property or grants some sort of title that has expired. That is certain and it is final and nobody disagrees with it.
The problem in the Courts is that judges have routinely ignored one simple basic fact: the current occupier of the property had legal title and the total right to possession of the property before this new party came into the picture and claimed the right to title and now claims the right to possession. Final Judgments entered in the Court records are not dispositive as pointed out by this Virginia court and as pointed out by the Supreme Court of the State of California in Yvanova.
It is the second part of the “formula” that came up in a Virginia Court, which has been one of the most difficult states in the nation for homeowners contesting the baseless actions of foreclosing parties. The logic is simple. Where the homeowner was clearly the owner of record and the possessor, the party seeking foreclosure must assert (nearly always absent) and prove that it came into title ownership lawfully and properly.
The interesting thing about this is that if the homeowner contests the eviction or unlawful detainer and does so with sufficient grounds as to create doubt as to whether the party seeking eviction lawfully acquired title, THEN the burden shifts to the party seeking eviction to prove that everything that happened before was lawful and proper. And we all know that without legal presumptions being improperly applied practically none of the evictions were or could be proper.
Like other things this is not a magic bullet. But it provides some daylight. The Virginia court held that as long as the homeowner successfully raises a question about title, the court hearing the eviction claim must dismiss the claim immediately because it has no right or jurisdiction actually try a case based upon title claims. I think you would find similar laws in other states where, for example, if County court the jurisdiction is far more limited than it is in Circuit Court. The County Court may hear and decide and eviction but as soon as the Court sees a bona fide question about title, it must dismiss the case leaving the parties to sort out their differences elsewhere. That might be in state Circuit Court or Federal District Court.
The party seeking eviction would need to go to a court of competent jurisdiction and plead that (a) they are the lawful title owner (b) they are entitled to possession and (3) the current occupants have lost their right to possession even though they had both title and possession before the foreclosure. Any allegation based in actual fact must be proven by actual facts and legal presumptions clearly should not apply once the lower court has already determined that there is doubt as to whether the documents for title were validly issued. This might prevent the party seeking to confirm title and seeking the eviction from using any legal presumptions since the documents themselves have already been determined by a lower court to lack trustworthiness or authenticity or legal effect.
One thing to keep in mind is that without legal presumptions none of the foreclosures could go forward because there is no proof in existence, in most cases, of the existence of an executed loan contract between the homeowner and the “originator.” The “presumed facts” are directly contrary to the actual facts. Or, as I have stated it in other circumstances, the money trail does not match the paper trail. There are no real transactions in most instances. The paper trail creates legal presumptions but as soon as a court orders that the foreclosing party open its books to determine whether there were actual transactions, actual loans by the parties upon whom the forecloser relies, the bank case falls to pieces.
… a conundrum because some actions for unlawful detainer necessarily turn on the question of title. Unlawful detainer is an action against a defendant who lawfully entered into possession of real property but whose right to lawful possession has since expired. It is brought by a plaintiff lawfully entitled to possession at the time of suit, which the defendant is then unlawfully withholding. Allen v. Gibson, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 468, 473 (1826). The validity of the plaintiff’s right of possession is an issue that, when disputed, must be determined in the adjudication of the unlawful detainer action. Id. at 474. The plaintiff must show either (1) prior actual possession, which was then yielded to the defendant under some temporary or defeasible estate that has ended, or (2) a right of possession acquired after the defendant’s entry. Id. at 474-76.
Whether the plaintiff has a right of possession will not always present a question of title. Such a question will never arise in the first class of cases, where the plaintiff’s right is based on prior actual possession. For example, a landlord may bring an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant who holds possession of the leased premises in violation of the lease or after it has expired. In such cases, the defendant’s possession is derivative of the plaintiff’s title, and the defendant is not permitted to challenge it. [e.s.]
Emerick v. Tavener, 50 Va. (9 Gratt.) 220, 223 (1852). However, a plaintiff in the second class of cases, who claims a right of possession acquired after the defendant’s original, lawful entry, must show the validity of that right. When the plaintiff’s after-acquired right of possession is based on a claim of title, the plaintiff may be required to establish the validity of that title. Corbett v. Nutt, 59 Va. (18 Gratt.) 624, 648 (1868).2 Actions for unlawful detainer in the foreclosure context generally fall into this category. [e.s.]
Where the right of possession depends solely upon a claim of title, the question of whether that title is valid is a threshold question in an unlawful detainer action. While a court’s resolution of that question in an unlawful detainer action may not, by statute, be preclusive in actions for ejectment or to quiet title, the court trying the unlawful detainer action nevertheless must weigh the parties’ competing arguments about validity to determine whether a plaintiff’s prima facie right of possession evidenced by a trustee’s deed has been rebutted by the defendant. [e.s.]
In most foreclosure cases, a trustee’s deed will satisfy the foreclosure purchaser’s burden to establish that it acquired a right of possession after the homeowner’s original, lawful entry, and the homeowner will have no good-faith basis to contest it. However, in limited circumstances, the homeowner could allege facts sufficient to place the validity of the trustee’s deed in doubt. In such cases, the general district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction to try title supersedes its subject matter jurisdiction to try unlawful detainer and the court must dismiss the case without prejudice. Warwick, 56 Va. (15 Gratt.) at 542 (“[O]n being convinced that the case involves a bona fide claim of title to real estate,” a court not of record “is bound to dismiss [the proceeding] immediately.”).