Court Opinion

ID: 9783613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:51:22.673506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:27.218149
License: Public Domain

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Section 512.180.11 provides that Truong “shall have a right of a trial de novo” to contest the unlawful detainer judgment. The statute grants a right; it does not compel the exercise of that right or expressly limit Truong’s right to pursue the normal course of appellate review. In this case, Truong declined to exercise his right to a trial de novo and, instead, filed a notice of appeal with this Court raising substantial constitutional challenges to the unlawful detainer statute. The appeal was filed in time. Therefore, I would hold that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the merits of Truong’s appeal.
The merits are compelling. Truong was evicted from his home even though he entered into a loan modification agreement, his payments were deducted automatically from his bank account, he received no actual notice of default, and he received no actual notice of the foreclosure sale. This is the natural and expected result of a process that specifically prohibits the unlawful detainer defendant from contesting the dispositive issue of title. While there is value in expediency, the greater value lies in the truth. As this case illustrates, the statutorily mandated rush to a judgment in unlawful detainer actions sacrifices the truth underlying the case.
There are at least two fundamental flaws in the judgment that warrant reversal. First, section 534.210 violates due process by providing that the “merits of the title shall in nowise be inquired into....” In other words, the unlawful de-tainer defendant is prohibited from disputing the dispositive issue of title. A basic precept of due process is that one should have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The opportunity to be heard presupposes a right to be heard on those matters necessary to defend the legal rights at issue. Section 534.210 plainly prohibits the unlawful detainer defendant from disputing the plaintiffs case or asserting his or her own proof of title, no matter how convincing and compelling that proof may be. For Truong or any other homeowner, this means that a bank or investor can evict an entire family from their home based on untested allegations. The homeowners can and will be heard; they just cannot say anything pertinent to the defense of their legal rights.
*406Banks and investors, like the Federal National Mortgage Association in this case, argue that Truong and similarly situated homeowners can fully protect their rights by simply filing a separate action contesting the validity of the alleged title. Conspicuously absent from this argument is any recognition of reality. In reality, homeowners facing an unlawful detainer following foreclosure are highly unlikely to have the financial means to bear the legal costs of a separate action. There are the legal fees. There are the double damages owed to the plaintiff pursuant to section 534.380. There is the bond in an amount of the double damages and lost rents. Section 534.380. In short, there is no way that a financially distressed homeowner can bear the costs and delay of separately litigating an issue that should be the plaintiffs burden to prove fully in the first place. Even if a homeowner is successful in challenging the underlying foreclosure, it is too late. The home has been sold. The failure to recognize these basic facts prevents a realistic and accurate assessment of the processes employed in unlawful detainer actions.
Second, Truong was deprived of his constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed right to a trial by jury. Section 534.160 specifically requires that “[ejither party shall have the right to a jury trial” so long as the request is timely. Despite Truong’s request for a trial by jury, the court disposed of the case by a summary judgment. The unlawful detainer process is itself summary in nature. As this case illustrates, a summary judgment in an already summary procedure is apt to yield results largely divorced from the actual facts. The right to a trial by jury, or at the very least a full bench trial, appears to be the only mechanism by which a financially distressed homeowner, facing imminent eviction from his or her home, can be afforded any possibility of requiring the plaintiff to prove that the allegations are at least somewhat true.
I would hear the appeal on the merits and reverse the judgment.

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as updated by RSMo Supp.2010.