Brian D. Parrish v. Federal National Mortgage Associati — McCLANAHAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting…

Summary

Justice McClananahan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, holds that the general district court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to decide the unlawful detainer and that the Parrishes' breach‑of‑deed allegations, even if true, would not deprive Fannie Mae of possession; therefore, he would affirm the circuit‑court judgment. He also dissents from the majority’s view that a title question divests jurisdiction and argues that unlawful detainer actions only determine right of possession, not title. The opinion is joined by a separate concurrence/dissent by Justice Powell, which contests the majority’s reasoning on jurisdiction and the definition of “try title.”