Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)

Citation: Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
Parent Document: Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2001-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5272474/central-bank-of-kansas-city-v-mika/ ↗

Full Text

1,054 chars

The Mikas set forth the detailed facts which they contend show the Bank wrongfully foreclosed the properties in question due to fraudulent actions on the part of the Bank. The Mikas contend they were entitled to contest the unlawful detainer by showing the Bank’s foreclosure was wrongful. To support their position, the Mikas rely upon authorities showing that the courts will entertain an action to set aside a foreclosure sale on the basis of fraud. For instance, the Mikas cite Fitzpatrick v. Federer, 315 S.W.2d 826 (Mo. 1958), in which the court recognized an equitable cause of action to set aside a foreclosure sale. The Mikas also rely upon Scholle v. Laumann, 139 S.W.2d 1067 (Mo.App.1940), in which the court held that, in an action to establish a deficiency judgment, the defendant debtor could raise the defense that the foreclosure title was wrongfully obtained by fraudulent promise. The Mikas fail, however, to cite authority for the proposition that such a claim can be raised as a defense to an unlawful detainer action under § 534.030.

Other Sections in This Document (18)

Full Text