Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bank of New York v Smith

Bank of New York v Smith

Ratings: (0)|Views: 564|Likes:
Published by DinSFLA

More info:

Published by: DinSFLA on Nov 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 No. 0-407 / 09-1816Filed July 28, 2010
FFMLT 04-FF10, BANK OF NEW YORK,as Successor in Interest to JP MORGANCHASE BANK, N.A., as Trustee,
Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don C. Nickerson,Judge.Barbra Smith appeals from a district court order denying her motion toquash the special execution and sale of her residence and grant declaratoryrelief.
 Robert C. Griffin, Des Moines, for appellant.Benjamin W. Hopkins, of Petosa, Petosa & Boecker, L.L.P., Clive, forappellee.Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Danilson, JJ.
 Barbra Smith appeals from a district court order denying her motion toquash the special execution and sale of her residence and grant declaratoryrelief. Smith contends the district court erred because the foreclosure judgmententered on July 5, 2007, was null and void pursuant to the statute of limitations inIowa Code section 615.1 (2007), and thus, no execution could issue thereon.For the following reasons, we reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Smith resides in a single-family residence at 371 NE 52nd Street in DesMoines, Iowa, with the legal description of Lot 2, W.H. Dean Place, An OfficialPlat, Polk County, Iowa. On April 4, 2007, Bank of New York filed an action to
foreclose upon Smith‟s mortgage
. Smith filed her demand for a six-month delayof sale on April 13, 2007 pursuant to Iowa Code section 654.21, which provides:At any time prior to entry of judgment, the mortgagor may filea demand for delay of sale. . . . [I]f the demand is filed and themortgaged property is the residence of the mortgagor and is a one-family or two-family dwelling, the sale shall be held promptly afterthe expiration of twelve months, or six months if the petitionincludes a waiver of deficiency judgment, from entry of judgment.On July 5, 2007, the district court entered an in rem foreclosure decree in favor of
Bank of New York, which provided for the execution sale of Smith‟
s residence.However, the demand to delay sale Smith filed prohibited Bank of New York fromseeking execution on the foreclosure judgment until six months after theforeclosure decree was filed.On July 24, 2009, a special execution was issued for enforcement of theJuly 5, 2007 foreclosure judgment. Thereafter, Smith filed a motion to quash the
3special execution and sale of her residence and grant declaratory relief,contending the two-year statute of limitations imposed in Iowa Code section615.1 rendered the foreclosure judgment null and void and prohibited itsexecution. Bank of New York subsequently
filed a resistance to Smith‟s motion
to quash, arguing the two-year statute of limitations was tolled for six months as
a result of Smith‟s demand to delay sale.
 On October 29, 2009, the district cour
t denied Smith‟s motion to quash
thespecial execution and sale and grant declaratory relief, finding
[did] not have
the discretion to stop the sale of the real property in this cause.”
This rulingallowed the special execution and subsequent
s sale, scheduled for thesame day, to proceed.
Bank of New York purchased the property at the sheriff‟s
sale and now asserts legal title to it. However, Smith continues to reside on theproperty. Smith now appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review a district court‟s denial of a motion to quash based on statutory
construction for errors at law.
War Eagle Vill. Apartments v. Plummer 
, 775N.W.2d 714, 717 (Iowa 2009). Consequently, we must determine if the districtcourt correctly interpreted Iowa Code section 615.1.
III. Preservation of Error.
We first address whether error was preserved. Bank of New Yorkcontends error was not preserved because Smith did not introduce into evidenceany supporting facts to prove the applicability of section 615.1. Specifically, Bankof New York argues Smith only filed a bare motion to quash and presented no

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->