Real Estate Law

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant appealed from orders of the circuit court entering summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff that confirmed the sale of the property and entered a deficiency judgment against the defendant. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred because the release of the mortgage barred the foreclosure and plaintiff did not provide evidence of fraud, duress, illegality, or mutual mistake. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred when it entered a deficiency judgment without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff presented clear and cogent evidence that no consideration was paid in exchange for the release and because the release was not a valid contract the bank had a valid, existing mortgage against the defendant and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. (McBRIDE and ELLIS, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract lawsuit alleging that defendant had failed to pay rent on a commercial property. The matter proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict with answers to special interrogatories indicating that there was a contract between the parties but that defendant did not breach the contract. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on the basis that the jury did not render a legally consistent verdict and defendant appealed. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in granting both plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial as well as plaintiffs’ motions in limine that barred defendant from presenting evidence that plaintiffs’ failed to mitigate their damages. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err and instructing that the parties be allowed to present evidence regarding plaintiffs’ reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages during the second trial. (LAMPKIN and VAN TINE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a quiet title action against the defendants. Defendants filed a counterclaim for breach of warranty deed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the quiet title claim and defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to find laches where the plaintiff timely recorded her installment contract and where the defendant did not exercise their right to declare a forfeiture. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)