Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Patterson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Citations: 176 So. 3d 840; 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 21; 2012 WL 165067Docket: 2100490
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; January 19, 2012; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson appealed a trial court's judgment favoring GMAC Mortgage, LLC, which had initiated an ejectment action against them regarding a property in Bessemer. GMAC Mortgage claimed ownership of the house following a foreclosure process that occurred on August 7, 2007, after the mortgage was transferred to them from Option One Mortgage Corporation. GMAC Mortgage alleged that they demanded possession of the house per Alabama Code § 6-5-251(a) but the Pattersons did not vacate. GMAC sought possession, damages for wrongful detention, and to establish that the Pattersons forfeited their right to redeem the property by failing to vacate timely. The Pattersons contended that the foreclosure was unlawful and filed a counterclaim. GMAC Mortgage moved for summary judgment, providing evidence including the foreclosure deed and notice of the foreclosure published in local newspapers. The trial court granted summary judgment to GMAC on the validity of the foreclosure but found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Pattersons received notice of the demand for possession. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the Pattersons did receive notice, ordered them to vacate the property, and ruled they forfeited their right to redeem it, though it did not award damages for wrongful detention. The Pattersons appealed, asserting the trial court erred in validating the foreclosure. While their appeal was pending, a related case, Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, was referenced, highlighting issues surrounding the timing of mortgage assignments and foreclosure proceedings. The appeal was subsequently transferred to a different court for consideration. BAC lacked the authority to foreclose on the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings, rendering both the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed invalid. Consequently, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house, which meant it had no interest in the property when it filed an ejectment action. As BAC had no interest, it lacked standing to pursue the ejectment action, leading to the trial court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment from the trial court was declared void and was vacated, resulting in the dismissal of BAC's appeal. In a similar case involving GMAC Mortgage, it was determined that GMAC, like BAC, had not been assigned the mortgage before starting foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, GMAC lacked authority to foreclose, making its foreclosure and subsequent ejectment claim invalid. GMAC's lack of ownership interest also meant it had no standing to initiate the ejectment action, preventing the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was void and was vacated, and GMAC's appeal was dismissed. The appeal had been held in abeyance pending the resolution of the Sturdivant case. Additionally, Alabama Code Section 6-5-251(a) mandates that possession of the land must be delivered to the purchaser within 10 days after a written demand, and Section 6-5-251(c) states that failure to comply forfeits the right of redemption. The Pattersons claimed they did not receive notice of the debt's acceleration.