This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute over the possession of a home previously owned by the Defendant's deceased parents. The Defendant continued to reside in the home after their death. The Defendant's daughter, appointed as the personal representative of the estates, sold the home to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought to evict the Defendant, who contested the validity of the sale, alleging forgery in the appointment of the personal representative (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Granted Plaintiff possession of the home through a forcible entry or unlawful detainer (para 1).
- District Court: Dismissed Defendant's appeal and issued a writ for forcible entry or unlawful detainer (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the metropolitan and district courts lacked jurisdiction due to a question of title being involved and claimed the appellate process was insufficient (para 1).
- Plaintiff: Asserted ownership of the home based on a general warranty deed and sought eviction of the Defendant (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Did the metropolitan court have jurisdiction to issue a judgment for forcible entry or unlawful detainer?
- Was the appellate process afforded to the Defendant sufficient?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and remanded the case to the metropolitan court with instructions to dismiss the petition for writ of restitution (para 1).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Attrep C.J. and Medina J. concurring): The Court found that the metropolitan court lacked jurisdiction because the question of title was directly and necessarily involved in the case. The Plaintiff's right to possession depended on the validity of the title, which was disputed due to allegations of forgery and ongoing probate proceedings. As a result, the metropolitan court could not resolve the issue of possession without addressing the title, which is beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the district court also lacked jurisdiction on appeal (paras 8-15).