Citizens Bank & Trust v. Brothers Construction & Manufacturing, Inc.
18 Kan. App. 2d 704, 859 P.2d 394, 1993 Kan. App. LEXIS 103 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a lien theory state, a leasehold interest in real estate is not terminated by a mortgage foreclosure action if the lessee is not made a party to that action, even when the foreclosing party has actual knowledge of the lessee's possession.
Facts:
- Citizens Bank & Trust (Bank) owned the first and second mortgages on a real estate property, executed in 1986 and 1989, and timely recorded.
- In December 1990, Brothers Construction & Manufacturing, Inc. (Brothers) entered into a written three-year lease agreement for the property, set to expire on January 1, 1994.
- Brothers occupied the property under the terms of this lease, but the lease was not recorded.
- Prior to the judgment being entered in the mortgage foreclosure action, the Bank had actual knowledge that Brothers was in possession of and occupying the property.
Procedural Posture:
- A third party filed a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action against the property and its owners in 1991.
- Citizens Bank & Trust was made a party to the mechanic's lien action and filed a cross-claim and third-party petition to foreclose its first and second mortgages.
- The Bank did not join Brothers Construction & Manufacturing, Inc. as a party to its mortgage foreclosure action.
- The mortgage foreclosure action proceeded to judgment in favor of the Bank, and a sheriff’s sale of the premises was ordered.
- The Bank purchased the property at the sheriff’s sale and subsequently received a sheriff’s deed.
- After receiving the sheriff’s deed, the Bank made demand upon Brothers to quit and vacate the premises, which Brothers refused to do.
- The Bank filed an action of forcible detainer against Brothers.
- Brothers filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that its leasehold interest was not affected by the foreclosure action because it was not made a party.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Brothers.
- The Bank appealed the trial court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mortgage foreclosure action terminate a lessee's interest in property if the lessee was not made a party to the action, despite the foreclosing party having actual knowledge of the lessee's possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No, a mortgage foreclosure action does not terminate a lessee's interest in property if the lessee was not made a party to the action, even if the foreclosing party had actual knowledge of the lessee's possession. Kansas is a 'lien theory' state, where a mortgage is merely a lien, not a form of title, and thus a mortgagee is not entitled to immediate possession upon default. Following the majority rule, which Kansas has adhered to since Wheat v. Brown (1896), a lease is terminated by foreclosure only if the tenant is made a party to the proceedings. The court emphasized that this rule is rooted in due process, as foreclosing an interest without providing the holder an opportunity to be heard offends basic principles of justice. The court rejected arguments that the rule is outdated, cumbersome for commercial institutions, or only applicable to farm leases, affirming its universal applicability and the importance of joining all known competing interests. The Bank's failure to join Brothers, despite having actual knowledge of Brothers' possession, was deemed inexcusable and fatal to its position. The court noted that it is a reasonable burden for banks to ascertain and join all parties claiming an interest in the property.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle of due process in property law and Kansas's adherence to the 'lien theory' of mortgages. It clarifies that a foreclosing mortgagee, especially one with actual knowledge of an unrecorded leasehold interest, bears an affirmative duty to join the lessee as a party to the foreclosure action. Failing to do so means the leasehold interest will likely survive the foreclosure, providing substantial protection for tenants. This ruling underscores the importance for lenders and purchasers to diligently investigate property occupancy and ensures that all parties whose property interests may be affected by litigation have their 'day in court,' potentially increasing the procedural burden on foreclosing entities but bolstering tenant rights.
