Use Of Quiet Title & Slander Of Title In Undoing Real Estate Equity Ripoff, Voiding Deeds & Mortgages

(This post was originally published on July 6, 2011.)

The successful use of a quiet title and slander of title lawsuit in an effort to undo a real estate equity scam perpetrated on an elderly property owner by his nephew and a gang of others was the focus of a December, 2009 ruling of an Illinois appeals court.

The fact pattern involved, among other things, a purported sale leaseback, coupled with a repurchase option, of property and the recording of forged land documents.

For those in Illinois (and possibly elsewhere) in the business of undoing and unwinding these ripoffs on behalf of the victims, there may be some points of interest, including the following:

• action to quiet title,


• requirements for adequately proving slander of title,


• essential elements of a forgery,


• cloud on title ("is the semblance of title" which is "unfounded" or "which it would be inequitable to enforce"),


• authority of an agent (may be actual or apparent and, if actual, may be express or implied),


• ratification of agent's unauthorized acts,


• failed attempt by the bank that financed the ripoff to reinstate its mortgage lien that had been voided by the trial court (unsuccessfully argued judicial estoppel and unclean hands),


• imposition of punitive damages in a slander of title case,


• availability of an attorney fee award for the victim in a slander of title case,(1)


• factors in determining an appropriate award for attorneys fees for the victimized property owner (liability for which is imposed on the scammers),


• applicability of a contingency fee risk multiplier in calculating the award for attorneys fees(2) (court approved use of a multiplier of 3 to determine the total fee award of $595,574 for the contingent portion of the fee).

For the ruling, see Gambino v. Boulevard Mortg. Corp., 398 Ill. App. 3d 21, 922 NE 2d 380 (Ill. App. 1st Dist., 6th Div. 2009) (Appeal denied by Gambino v. Blvd. Mortg. Corp. (W.W. Funding, L.L.C.), 2010 Ill. LEXIS 909 (Ill., May 26, 2010)).

(1) With respect to the appropriateness of awarding attorneys fees in a slander of title action, the Illinois appeals court made this observation:

• Contrary to the Wolf defendants' argument, there is authority in Illinois providing that recovery for slander of title actions permit recovery of those costs and attorney fees which directly flow from the wrongful disparagement. Home Investments Fund v. Robertson, 10 Ill. App.3d 840, 844, 295 N.E.2d 85 (1973).
  
  Further, plaintiffs were entitled to recover those costs and attorney fees directly related to the quieting of title and to those damages directly related to a slander of title, i.e., loss of vendibility, etc. Robertson, 10 Ill.App.3d at 844, 295 N.E.2d 85.

(2) For more on the use of risk multipliers in calculating prevailing party attorney fees in pro bono and contingency fee cases, see:

• The Yale Law Jounal: The Contingency Factor In Attorney Fee Awards.


• Defending A Foreclosure Defense Case Pro Bono? Don't Forget The Contingency Risk Factor When Sticking Losing Lender With Tab.