|
Analysis: The Tennessee
Court of Appeals in David Paczko v. SunTrust Mortgages, Inc., No. M2011-02528-COA-R3-CV,
2012 WL 4450896 (Tenn. Ct. App. September 25, 2012) discussed the
requirements for a slander of title claim as well as the related claim to quiet
title. This case involved a dispute over
the plaintiff’s property that was foreclosed against by the defendants. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the bank from
going forward with the foreclosure proceeding and to clear the title. Paczko at 1.
The court found that in order to be successful with a claim
for slander of title, the plaintiff must establish the following:
(1) that the [plaintiff] has an
interest in the property, (2) that the defendant published false statements
about the title to the property, (3) that the defendant was acting maliciously,
and (4) that the false statements proximately caused the plaintiff a pecuniary
loss.
Paczko at 3. (citing Brooks v. Lambert, 15 S.W.3d 482, 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). The court further noted that in order to
bring an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must “have an interest in the
property at issue." Once the
interest in the property ceases, the plaintiff no longer has a justiciable
claim for an action to quiet title. Paczko at 3.
In this case the court found that because the
plaintiffs acknowledged the property was foreclosed upon and sold during the
pendency of the lawsuit and they were not seeking to recover the property, they
no longer had an interest in the property. Paczko at 3. The
fact the case was justiciable and able to be decided by the court when the
lawsuit was filed does not mean that the court still has jurisdiction over the
case once the plaintiff lost possession of the property. Paczko at 3. The
court noted that "cases must be justiciable not only when they are first
filed but must also remain justiciable throughout the entire course of the
litigation, including the appeal." Paczko at 3. (citing McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Tenn. Ct. App.
1994)). Since the plaintiff no
longer had an interest in the property and that was a required element of their
claim, the claims for slander of title and to quiet title were moot and could
not be decided by the court.
This case is important to
consider when the original basis for a lawsuit is no longer present at some
point during the pendency of the suit.
Just because the plaintiff had a valid cause of action at the beginning
of the suit does not mean that the cause of action remains viable if there is a
material change to an essential component of the claim.
|