Federal National Mortgage Association v. Etta E. Malinou et al.

101 A.3d 860 (R.I. 2014) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · October 20, 2014 · No. No. 2013-179-Appeal (PD 09-3907)

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment awarding Federal National Mortgage Association possession of property following a foreclosure and subsequent conveyance. The Court held that the defendant waived his personal-jurisdiction argument, upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction over the transferred trespass and ejectment action, and rejected challenges based on title documents, subpoenas issued shortly before trial, and a tax-sale deed. The Court also concluded that Fannie Mae retained the right to possess the property while its right of redemption remained in effect.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Associate Justice Francis X. Flaherty; Chief Justice Suttell; Justice Goldberg; Justice Flaherty; Justice Robinson; Justice Indeglia
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
October 20, 2014
Docket number
No. 2013-179-Appeal (PD 09-3907)
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from a Superior Court judgment, entered after a nonjury trial, awarding Fannie Mae possession in a trespass and ejectment action.
Standard of review
Findings of fact by a justice sitting without a jury are accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. A judgment in a nonjury case may be reversed if the trial justice misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material evidence, or made clearly wrong factual findings.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential Rhode Island Supreme Court decision.
Parties
Martin Malinou v. Federal National Mortgage Association
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

ejectmenttitle disputessubject matter jurisdictionappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

Real estateCivil procedureAppellate procedureRemedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the decedent's estate had not been served.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court should review the trial justice's factual findings de novo because they were based on documentary evidence.
  3. Whether clear and convincing evidence was required to rebut the presumption favoring the record title holder.
  4. Whether the trial justice abused her discretion by refusing to enforce subpoenas duces tecum served shortly before trial and after the discovery deadline.
  5. Whether a tax-sale deed deprived Fannie Mae of the right to possess the property while Fannie Mae retained the statutory right of redemption.

Holdings

  1. The defendant waived his personal-jurisdiction argument by failing to raise it below, and the Superior Court nevertheless had subject matter jurisdiction because the parties stipulated to transfer the trespass and ejectment action based on title issues.
  2. The Supreme Court continued to accord great deference to factual findings made by a trial justice sitting without a jury, even when those findings were based on documentary evidence.
  3. The court declined to decide whether clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome the presumption favoring a record title holder because the defendant's evidence failed even under the less stringent preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
  4. The trial justice acted within her discretion in refusing to enforce subpoenas served one and two days before trial, after discovery had closed, because they were overbroad, untimely, and would have required suspension of the trial.
  5. The tax-sale deed did not deprive Fannie Mae of the right to possess the property because a tax-sale purchaser acquires no right to possession before the statutory period expires and Fannie Mae retained its right of redemption.

Key quotations

“However, that does not end our jurisdictional inquiry.” (at 8)
“We see no reason to depart from that time-tested standard here.” (at 9)
“A subpoena duces tecum, when [employed] as a means of belated discovery, should not be allowed to circumvent the discovery deadlines for parties established by the other rules of civil procedure or by court order.” (at 11)
“One who purchases property at a tax sale acquires a title that is contingent upon the owner’s nonredemption.” (at 12)

Factual background

Etta E. Malinou owned the Providence property and executed a reverse-mortgage note and mortgage in favor of Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation. The note and mortgage were assigned to Seattle Savings Bank, which later foreclosed after the decedent's death and conveyed the property to Fannie Mae by quitclaim deed. Fannie Mae notified Martin Malinou to vacate and then brought a trespass and ejectment action. Malinou challenged Fannie Mae's title and possession based primarily on an allegedly defective assignment, a tax-sale deed, and late subpoenas directed to mortgage-related entities.

Procedural history

Fannie Mae filed a trespass and ejectment action in the Sixth Division District Court after acquiring the property through foreclosure and a quitclaim deed. The parties stipulated to transfer the case to Superior Court because the defense raised issues of title. After a nonjury trial, the Superior Court awarded Fannie Mae possession. The Rhode Island Supreme Court considered the appeal pursuant to a show-cause order and affirmed.

Remand instructions

The papers were remanded to the Superior Court.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Rhode Island Supreme Court