Foreclosure was procedurally valid in Minnesota

Defendants properly served in Minnesota

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Robert D. House, a/k/a Robert House, and Nancy C. House, a/k/a/ Nancy House, Defendants.
Civ. No. 98-2057 (RLE)

Case Law
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
100 F. Supp. 2d 967; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9260

April 10, 2000, Decided

Facts: In connection with loans made defendants A and B executed three promissory notes in favor of plaintiff X. They also executed a real estate mortgage on two parcels of land. X began an action to evict defendants after they refused to vacate in spite of a valid foreclosure by advertisement, and expiration of the statutory redemption period. In response, A and B filed a counterclaim for lost rents as a result of plaintiff's alleged wrongful foreclosure. X established that all statutory requirements for foreclosure were met. A and B did not contest plaintiff's right to foreclose on the property, prior to the foreclosure proceedings admitting they owed over $ 100,000 on the notes and mortgages executed in favor of plaintiff. Rather, A and B maintained that the foreclosure was procedurally invalid because plaintiff failed to properly effectuate service of process upon them.

Issue: Whether A and B tendered valid issues

Ruling: No. The sale was upheld as valid. Plaintiff properly effected service upon the Defendants, and that the foreclosure on their real property was a valid exercise of the Minnesota foreclosure Statutes, requires the rejection of the Defendants' Counterclaim, which seeks a recoupment of lost rental income as a result of the Plaintiff's foreclosure on their property.

Lesson Learned: For purposes of determining effective service of process in deciding whether an individual is then residing therein for purposes of service of process, there must be a nexus between the individual and the defendant that establishes some reasonable assurance that notice would reach the defendant.

Written by Kevin Levonas and Jerry L.