Debra Wax v. Sarah Vickers

Rolla, Missouri real property lawyer represented the Plaintiff in a title dispute.

Plaintiff filed the petition on September 13, 2023. In relevant part, the petition alleged that: (1) Plaintiff and her non-party husband (Husband) were the fee simple owners of real property located on North Maple Street in Rolla, Missouri (hereinafter, the Property); (2) Plaintiff and Defendant executed a promissory note (hereinafter, the Note) whereby Defendant was to pay the Note each month; (3) Defendant had failed to pay the Note for the past 12 months; (4) Plaintiff had made those payments and continued to do so; (5) Plaintiff made demand upon Defendant to vacate the Property; and (6) Defendant was in possession of the Property without right or title and continued to withhold the Property from Plaintiff. The prayer for relief requested that Plaintiff be restored to possession and that she recover damages and costs from Defendant. The petition had two exhibits attached. Exhibit 1 was a general warranty deed bearing the date of August 15, 2019, and naming Plaintiff and Husband as the grantees. Exhibit 2 was the Note promising to pay First State Community Bank (the Bank) the amount of $51,210. The borrowers listed on the Note were Defendant, Plaintiff, and Husband. The petition contained no explanation for why Defendant was obligated to pay a substantial debt on real estate that did not include her name on the general warranty deed.



A bench trial commenced on November 8, 2023. Plaintiff was represented by counsel, and Defendant appeared pro se.[2] Viewed in accordance with the result reached, the following facts favorable to the judgment were presented at trial.



Plaintiff and Husband were Defendant's mother and stepfather. Defendant had lived in another house in the country for 12 years before she was contacted by Plaintiff and Husband in 2019. They called Defendant and asked her to move to town because they had found a house for her. There was no written agreement, contract for deed, or rental agreement for the Property. Defendant and Plaintiff signed the written purchase offer listing them as buyers. Defendant, Plaintiff, and Husband went to the Bank and obtained a loan to purchase the Property. Defendant believed that she was buying the Property, that her name would be on the general warranty deed, and that the Note she signed was to provide funds for her purchase.



Prior to the closing, Defendant got a call from Husband, during which he stated that the Bank "had drawn up the paperwork wrong and the closing would be the following week[.]" The closing took place on August 15, 2019. Defendant did not see any of the paperwork until the closing, when "papers were shuffled around and [Defendant] was told to sign." Defendant, Plaintiff and Husband all signed the Note, which was in the amount of $51,520 and had a 30-year term. Defendant thought Plaintiff and Husband were just acting as cosigners on the Note. At some point, Defendant's name had been stricken from the first page of the written purchase offer as a buyer. She was not present when this change was made, did not initial or date it, and Defendant was still listed on the back page as a buyer. The general warranty deed for the Property listed only Plaintiff and Husband as grantees. Defendant received copies of the closing documents, but she did not review them at that time. She did not receive a copy of the general warranty deed, so she was not aware that her name had been omitted.



After the closing, Plaintiff and Husband had executed a beneficiary deed that, in the event of their deaths, would transfer the Property to Defendant. During the hearing, Plaintiff admitted that the Property was purchased because she and Husband "wanted to be sure [Defendant] had a place to live." Later in the hearing, Plaintiff gave the following additional testimony about the purpose of purchasing the Property:



Q. So [Defendant] borrowed money to pay for this [P]roperty, but she's not listed on the general warranty deed. Why did she borrow money to pay for this [P]roperty if she wasn't going to be listed on the deed?



A. The home was purchased, you know, as a home for her, you know, to pay directly to the [B]ank, because she couldn't purchase a home.



Q. So was it your intent, you and [Husband's] intent, that she would purchase this home and you were cosigners on the [N]ote because she couldn't get the loan in her own name, she had to have a cosigner?



A. Pretty much.



Q. Do you know why she was not then listed on the general warranty deed as a co-owner of the [P]roperty?



A. Because I believed the beneficiary was TOD, that she would take over if the two of us were deceased.



After closing, Defendant made the $457 monthly Note payments directly to the Bank. That continued for at least three years. However, when a "family tiff" occurred, Plaintiff threatened to kick Defendant out of the house. This was the first time Defendant learned that her name was not on the general warranty deed for the Property. At that point, Defendant stopped making the Note payments. Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice to vacate on September 1, 2023, but Defendant continued residing on the Property.



On December 15, 2023, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Defendant. The judgment stated that "Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof in this matter." The petition for ejectment was denied.

Affirmed