Patrick v. 111 Clearview Drive, LLC

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to quiet title to certain real property to which the defendant held title. B Co. had previously commenced a tax foreclosure action involving the property against, inter alia, J and H. During the pendency of the foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed multiple motions with the court attempting to intervene, alleging that she had acquired a two-thirds interest in the property on the death of J by descent as J's heir, and a one-third interest in the property by quitclaim deed from the heirs of H. A judgment of foreclosure by sale was rendered in the foreclosure action. The court thereafter denied the plaintiff's motion to intervene on behalf of her two-thirds interest in the property as untimely and dismissed her motion to open the foreclosure judgment on behalf of her one-third interest in the property as moot. Her additional attempts to litigate her alleged interest in the property were also unsuccessful, including an appeal to this court from the trial court's denial of her motion to reargue and reconsider the order approving the foreclosure sale. The plaintiff then commenced the present quiet title action. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint as legally insufficient. The trial court granted the motion to strike and rendered judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining, sua sponte, that the plaintiff was collaterally attacking the foreclosure judgment. Held: 1. The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate her claims because they constituted an attempt to collaterally attack a prior judgment and were, therefore, moot and nonjusticiable: a. The plaintiff could not prevail on her claim that, because she was unsuccessful in intervening in the foreclosure action on behalf of her two-thirds interest in the property, she was denied a constitutionally protected right to be heard prior to the deprivat