Opinion ID: 2570344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Deed of Trust Is Enforceable Under the Doctrine of Quasi-Estoppel.

Text: Following trial, the superior court considered Rockstad's Motion to Dismiss Judicial Foreclosure. According to the motion, (1) Rockstad's family residence was the property named in the deed of trust to secure Erikson's loan; (2) this family residence was held by Rockstad and his wife Lauren Rockstad as tenants by the entirety, and Lauren Rockstad's name appears on the title to that property; (3) where husband and wife both appear on the deed both must sign in order for a conveyance to be valid under AS 34.15.010(b) and (d); (4) the deed of trust was signed only by Rockstad himself; and (5) therefore the deed of trust is void. [25] The superior court denied Rockstad's motion, and Rockstad appeals. The superior court based its decision to allow foreclosure in part on the equitable doctrine of quasi-estoppel. Quasi-estoppel appeals to the conscience of the court to prevent injustice by precluding a party from taking a position so inconsistent with one he has previously taken that circumstances render assertion of the second position unconscionable. [26] Unlike other forms of estoppel, quasi-estoppel does not require ignorance or reliance as essential elements, but any representation made to the party claiming quasi-estoppel must have been based [on] full knowledge of the facts. [27] Since a finding of quasi-estoppel is closely tied to the particular facts and circumstances of the individual case, the determination is essentially a factual one and, as such, is one which will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings on which it is based are clearly erroneous. [28] Among the many factors we consider in applying quasi-estoppel are: (1) whether the party asserting the inconsistent position has gained an advantage or produced some disadvantage through the first position; (2) the magnitude of the inconsistency; (3) whether changed circumstances tend to justify the inconsistency; (4) whether the party claiming estoppel relied on the inconsistency to his detriment; and (5) whether the first assertion was made with full knowledge of the facts. [29] Most of the elements of quasi-estoppel are self-evident in this case. Since Rockstad himself signed the deed of trust in order to secure his loan from Erikson, he obviously changed his position by later asserting that the document was invalid. The gain to Rockstad and detriment to Erikson that resulted from the change in position, and from Erikson's reliance on Rockstad's original position, were clearly significant. Rockstad must have known that his wife was listed on the title to their home. And Rockstad has offered nothing that could justify his inconsistent positions. In sum, the court was justified in applying quasi-estoppel to validate the deed of trust and enforce Erikson's foreclosure on Rockstad's half-interest in the property. [30]