Tag Archives: summary judgment motion

Connecticut Court Denies All Five of Defendant’s Special Defenses to Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Samaha, 2013 Conn. Super. (Conn. Super. Ct., 2013) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

In this action, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage executed by Joseph Samaha and Denise Samaha in favor of the Webster Bank.

The defendant raised several special defenses to this foreclosure action. First, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this litigation. Second, defendant claimed that as a result of the death of one of the makers of the note, Joseph Samaha, that his estate had an indivisible interest in the subject property and was subject to probate court jurisdiction. Third, the defendant challenged the authority of MERS to assign this mortgage to the plaintiff. Fourth, the defendant alleged that she had tendered payment with regard to the note and she alleged accord and satisfaction. Fifth, the defendant challenged whether or not the note in question was a negotiable instrument.

With regard to the first special defense, the court found that the affidavits supplied by the plaintiff established that they had standing for the purposes of doing this litigation.

In regards to the second defense, the court found that there was simply no authority for this assertion. The third special defense challenged the authority of the MERS to assign the note and mortgage. The court found that there were no facts alleged in the special defense and there was no affidavit from the defendant providing any factual foundation for her assertions.

The court found that the fourth defense was a mere assertion, without any evidence to support it, and thereby contest or create a material issue of fact for a motion of summary judgment is insufficient. Finally, the fifth special defense was deemed to be an assertion of a legal conclusion.

Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Bank as Genuine Issue of Fact Existed as to Whether the Bank held the Note

Posted on by

The court in deciding U.S. Bank N.A. v. Kamal, 2013-Ohio-5380 (Ohio Ct. App., Mahoning County, 2013) reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The court decided that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank was the holder of the note or mortgage when the complaint was filed and as to whether U.S. Bank complied with the default provisions in the note and mortgage. Therefore, the grant of summary judgment in U.S. Bank’s favor was reversed and the matter was remanded for further summary judgment proceedings.

Defendants-appellants appealed the decision of the lower court, which granted summary judgment and issued a decree of foreclosure for U.S. Bank National Association. Three issues were raised; the first was whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank complied with the notice of default provisions in the note and mortgage. The second issue was whether U.S. Bank was a real party in interest when the foreclosure complaint was filed. The third issue was whether the trial court should have struck certain evidence that U.S. Bank used to support its request for summary judgment.

This court ultimately held that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the bank was the holder of the note when the complaint was filed, as the record was devoid of any evidence proving the date on which the bank became the holder. There was also a genuine issue of fact as to when the mortgage was assigned, as the assignment contained information not known on the date the mortgage was executed and the only other logical date was the date the assignment was recorded, which occurred after the complaint was filed. Additionally a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the bank complied with the notice of default and acceleration provision, as there was no evidence as to how the bank notified the debtor as the acceleration.

Ultimately, the lower court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for further summary judgment proceedings.

NY Court Rejects Lack-of-Standing Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding HSBC Bank USA v Sage, 112 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2013) affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the defendant’s lack of standing claim.

HSBC Bank USA commenced this foreclosure action alleging that defendant Gregory Sage defaulted on a note secured by a mortgage on his real property. After joinder of issue and an extended period of time during which settlement conferences took place, plaintiff moved for summary judgment striking the answer and appointment of a referee. Defendant cross-moved for, among other things, leave to amend his answer to allege that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied the cross motion. After considering the arguments, this court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

This court found that the plaintiff had established that the custodian of the trust had physical possession of the note and mortgage prior to the commencement of the action and that, as trustee, the plaintiff was responsible for carrying out the terms of the trust. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the affidavit from an assistant vice-president of the mortgage servicing company was adequately based on a review of the books and records of the company maintained in the ordinary course of business, and the lack of personal knowledge as to the creation of the documents was not fatal.

Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment and the burden then shifted to defendant to come forward with competent and admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a defense that properly could raise an issue of fact as to his default. Defendant, as this court noted, did not do this, thus the case was properly dismissed.

Connecticut Court Rejects Invalid Assignment and Standing Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Samaha, 2013 Conn. Super.  (Conn. Super. Ct., 2013) granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage executed by Joseph Samaha and Denise Samaha in favor of the Webster Bank in the principal amount of $162,000.00.

The defendant raised several special defenses to this foreclosure action. First, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this litigation. Second, the defendant claimed that as a result of the death of one of the makers of the note, Joseph Samaha, that his estate had an indivisible interest in the subject property and was subject to probate court jurisdiction. Third, the defendant challenged the authority of MERS to assign this mortgage to the plaintiff. Four, that the defendant had tendered payment with regard to the note and she alleged accord and satisfaction. Fifth, the defendant challenged whether or not the note in question was a negotiable instrument.

Regarding the first special defense, the court decided that the plaintiff had standing.
The court found there was simply no authority for the defendant’s second assertion. Further, the court found there were no facts alleged in the special defense and there is no affidavit from the defendant providing any factual foundation for the third assertion. Regarding the fourth special defense the court found that the mere assertion of this defense, without any evidence to support it, and thereby contest or create a material issue of fact for a motion of summary judgment is insufficient. Lastly, the fifth special defense was deemed to be an assertion of a legal conclusion.

The court in deciding this case granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Court Rejects Arguments that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Lacked the Authority to Assign Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in deciding Jones v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Mich., 2013) granted defendant Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff alleged that the foreclosure of his property was unlawful for the following reasons: (1) Nationstar refused to accept his payment of $1,019.74; (2) Nationstar failed to produce the original note with the red blood signature; (3) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) lacked the authority to assign the mortgage; (4) Plaintiff was not afforded sufficient due process; and (5) Nationstar lacked standing to seek foreclosure. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

Plaintiff had responded to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, this court found that the plaintiff had failed to submit any evidence challenging, refuting, or otherwise calling into doubt the evidence submitted by the defendant.

Instead, the court found that the plaintiff had submitted several exhibits that supported the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had also submitted an affidavit in which he asserted irrelevant matters such as the fact that the defendant Nationstar “was not a human being” and defendants “did not have the rights of a natural human being.”

This court found that to the extent that plaintiff had asserted relevant facts, such did not advance plaintiff’s position.

Court Finds that BAC Home Loans did not Have Standing to File Suit

Posted on by

The court in deciding BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Blythe, 2013-Ohio-5775 (Ohio Ct. App., Columbiana County, 2013) reversed the lower court’s decision and found that appellee had not established that it was the current holder of the note and mortgage, thus, appellee did not have standing to file suit.

Appellant Walter J. Blythe appealed the Columbiana County Common Pleas Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., in a foreclosure action.

Blythe challenged the trial court’s finding that BAC had standing to foreclose in the absence of evidence that BAC was the holder of the note that created the obligation. Blythe relied on the material submitted by BAC in support of this claim.

This court held that the note that had been specially indorsed to a bank under R.C. 1303.25(A) could not be enforced by the loan servicing company (LSC) that was not the transferee or successor in interest of the bank. The LSC was not the holder of the note under R.C. 1303.32(A)(1) by virtue of the merger of the bank and a national association (NA). The LSC was not a non-holder in possession entitled to enforce under R.C. 1303.31 as it had not acquired the bank’s right to the note under R.C. 1303.21.

The court noted that even if the NA had filed the foreclosure suit, there was no evidence of the transaction, merger, or mergers that gave rise to an its interest in the note. The note was not bearer paper and could only be enforced by the bank since the note was payable to the bank, here the bank was the real party in interest in the foreclosure action, thus the LSC lacked standing to foreclose.

Court Finds that Bank was Entitled to Enforce the Instrument Under R.C. 1303.31

Posted on by

The court in deciding M & T Bank v. Strawn, 2013-Ohio-5845 (Ohio Ct. App., Trumbull County 2013) affirmed the lower court’s decision and found that appellant’s argument was without merit.

Appellant framed three issues for this court’s review. First, appellant contended that the trial court erred in relying upon the affidavit of Mr. Fisher to demonstrate that appellant had possession of the promissory note and that the copies were true and accurate. Second, appellant questioned whether appellee fulfilled the condition precedent of providing notice of the default and notice of acceleration. Third, appellant argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellee was the real party in interest possessing an interest in the promissory note and mortgage.

The court found that the bank’s possession of the note was shown by an affidavit, along with attached copies of the note endorsed to the bank, and one in possession of a note endorsed to that party was a holder, for purposes of R.C. 1301.201(B)(21)(a), and thus entitled to enforce the instrument under R.C. 1303.31.

The court also found that the affidavit for the bank clearly stated that the bank had been in possession of the original promissory note, and the affidavit was sufficient for the trial court to have held that the affiant had personal knowledge. Lastly, the court found that nothing suggested that voided endorsements affected the bank’s status as a holder, and thus it did not create an issue of fact and that the bank acquired an equitable interest in the mortgage when it became a holder of the note, regardless of whether the mortgage was actually or validly assigned or delivered.