Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., [Ms. 2140890, Apr. 15, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). After a non-judicial foreclosure, an action for ejectment does not allow the mortgagor to raise defenses to the foreclosure that would render it only voidable. Among other defenses to the ejectment action, Williams asserted that Wells Fargo did not comply with HUD requirements for loss mitigation. However, those requirements made the foreclosure only voidable, not void, so she could not raise them as a defense to the ejectment action after the foreclosure. Ms. Williams also stated in an affidavit that Wells Fargo had misrepresented that it would not foreclose until she had been notified of the results of her loss mitigation application, but Wells Fargo responded that this alleged agreement violated the statute of frauds, and the Court of Civil Appeals agreed. The Court of Civil Appeals also rejects an argument that an error in the property description made the foreclosure void. The foreclosure description contained only a minor error and it correctly gave the street address of the property. Rejecting these and other arguments Ms. Williams raised on appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirms a summary judgment for Wells Fargo on its ejectment action. This is a plurality opinion by one judge with one judge concurring, two judges concurring in the result, and one judge recused.
Related Documents: Williams v Wells Fargo Bank 4-15-16