The Estate of Jacqueline McCarn Ingrum v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, Inc. et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 69 MOTION to Alter, amend, or vacate 68 Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/15/11. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF JACQUELINE
McCARN INGRUM,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACQUISITION, )
LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-255-WKW [WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, the Estate of Jacqueline McCarn Ingrum (“the Estate”), moves for relief
from this court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Financial
Freedom Acquisition, LLC (“Financial Freedom”), Pacific Reverse Mortgage, Inc.
(“Pacific”), and Shaun Donovan, as Secretary of United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (“HUD”) (collectively “Defendants”). This cause is before the court
on the Estate’s Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate (Doc. # 69), pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e), and Defendants’ responses (Docs. # 71, 74). Upon consideration of
counsel’s arguments, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the Estate’s motion is due
to be denied.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to alter, amend or vacate is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).

“In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources,

reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.”
United States v. Bailey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “The decision to alter
or amend a judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” O’Neal v.
Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992).
“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot
be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been
presented prior to the entry of judgment. Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)).
II. DISCUSSION
As Plaintiff has set forth no new evidence, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) argument must
necessarily rest upon perceived “manifest errors of law or fact” in the court’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order (Doc. # 67) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Other
than stating that the motion is filed pursuant to Rule 59 (Doc. # 69, at 1), Plaintiff does not
brief the legal standard for Rule 59 motions or state why any of its arguments are deserving
of such an “extraordinary remedy.” Bailey, 288 F. Supp. 2d at 1267.
Rather, a reading of Plaintiff’s brief reveals that it is merely disagreeing with the
court’s conclusions of law and fact and it does “nothing but ask the [court] to reexamine an
unfavorable ruling.” Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir.
2010). Because Plaintiff has “identified no new evidence or manifest error” and is “merely
2

attempt[ing] to reargue factual issues previously decided by [this court],” Morton v. Astrue,
380 F. App’x 892, 895 (11th Cir. 2010), the motion is due to be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate
(Doc. # 69) is DENIED.
DONE this 15th day of June, 2011.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3