Blake v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as follows: 1. Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 46 is GRANTED. 2. The sole remaining breach of contract claim asserted by Plaintiff Susan H. Blake against Defendant BANA is dismissed with prejudice because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendant BANA is entitled to a judgment in its favor as to this claim. 3. All remaining deadlines and hearings in this matter, including the January 28, 2013 trial, are TERMIN ATED. Because this Opinion and Order resolves all claims in this action, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this file. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SUSAN H. BLAKE,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-242-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Susan Blake (“Plaintiff” or “Blake”) filed this action against Defendants
Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Best Interest Rate Mortgage Company, LLC (“Best
Interest”), and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) (collectively, “Defendants”),
alleging that she was caused to suffer damages as a result of their conduct. This cause is
before the Court on Defendant BANA’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #46).
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the evidentiary submissions, and the record as a
whole, the Court finds that Defendant BANA’s motion is due to be GRANTED.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332.1 The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and the Court finds
This action was original filed in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama. (Doc.
#1-10.) Defendants BANA and BAC timely removed this action to federal court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction. Best Interest did not join in the removal, as its registered agent
returned service of the Summons and Complaint. See Cook v. Bessemer City Bd. of Educ.,
No. 2:12-cv-1063-RDP, 2012 WL 4813831, at *1, 4 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 4, 2012) (“[A] defendant
need not participate in removal proceedings absent formal service.”). Plaintiff moved to
adequate allegations in support of both.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is
appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment “always bears
the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. The movant can meet this burden
by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which
it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23.
Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) “requires the nonmoving party
to go beyond the pleadings and by [her] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a
remand on the grounds that the amount in controversy required to establish diversity
jurisdiction had not been met. (Docs. #1, 10.) Following full briefing by the parties, the
Court concluded that it indeed had diversity jurisdiction in this matter, as the removing
Defendants had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that complete diversity existed
between the parties and that the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement had been met.
genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324 (internal quotations omitted). To avoid summary
judgment, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). A plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that she
can establish the basic elements of her claim, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, because “conclusory
allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value” at the summary
judgment stage. Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985).
A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the evidence of the
non-movant and must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the non-moving
party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court must grant
summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The Court has carefully considered all deposition excerpts and documents submitted
in support of and in opposition to the motion. The submissions of the parties, viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, establish the following facts:
Plaintiff purchased a home on Kinsley Court in Auburn, Alabama, in 1997 (the
“Property”) and financed this purchase through Auburn Bank. (Deposition of Dorothy Snow
(“Snow Dep.”), Doc. #54-3.) On October 29, 2005, Plaintiff refinanced her loan by
executing a Note in the principal amount of $185,600 in favor of Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc. (“Countrywide”). (Note, Doc. #47-1.) The Note was secured by a Mortgage on the
property in favor of Countrywide. (Mortgage, Doc. #47-2.) BANA assumed Countrywide’s
assets and liabilities after the two companies merged in or about July 2008, and BANA now
services Plaintiff’s loan.
Under the terms of the Note, Plaintiff is obligated to repay her loan by making
minimum monthly payments of $1,345.73 in principal and interest on the first day of each
month, beginning on January 1, 2006, and continuing until December 1, 2035, or until the
Note is satisfied. (Doc. #47-1.) Plaintiff admits that her failure to pay this monthly payment
in full on the date it is due would be a default of her obligations under the Note. (Pl.’s Res.
to BANA’s Req. for Admis., Doc. #47-4, No. 4.) Moreover, there is no dispute that, in the
event of default, the lender may require Plaintiff to pay immediately the full amount of
principal and interest owed on the loan and may even invoke its power of sale. (Doc. #47-1,
2.) The lender may also charge Plaintiff late fees if the full amount of any monthly payment
is not received by the end of fifteen calendar days after the date it is due. (Doc. #47-1.)
Plaintiff had a history of paying her monthly mortgage late. By 2008, Plaintiff was
having increasing difficulty making her monthly mortgage payments. As a result, in April
2009, Plaintiff contacted a third party, Best Interest, and paid it a $1,500 fee to attempt to
negotiate a loan modification with BANA on her behalf. Plaintiff completed the paperwork
provided by Best Interest, and Best Interest provided that paperwork to BANA. Best Interest
told Plaintiff not to contact or make her monthly mortgage payments to BANA because that
would expedite the loan modification process. Plaintiff complied and stopped making
regular monthly mortgage payments to BANA in April 2009.2 (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.)
From May 2009 through March 2010, Plaintiff did not make any monthly mortgage
payments to BANA. In or about October or November 2009, Plaintiff claims that she was
informed by Best Interest that her loan modification was approved and that she would be
receiving paperwork from BANA to sign to complete the process by the end of the year.
This conversation with Best Interest was the only time anyone told Plaintiff that a loan
modification had been approved. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.)
In January 2010, when Plaintiff had not received any paperwork, she called BANA
and was told that they were behind on processing loan modifications and that she should
check back later. BANA did not tell Plaintiff that she had been approved for a loan
modification at that time or at any other time. In fact, Plaintiff testified that BANA never
agreed to modify her loan. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3, at 102:4S5.)
On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff spoke with a BANA employee,3 whom she claims told
Plaintiff ceased making her loan payments to BANA at Best Interest’s instruction,
despite the fact that the agreement she signed with Best Interest expressly states: “The
negotiation of a loan modification does not excuse you from making your regularly
scheduled mortgage payments.” (Best Interest Agreement, Doc. #47-5.) Plaintiff does not
contend that a representative from BANA ever advised her to stop making her monthly
mortgage payments. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not made a regular monthly mortgage
payment to BANA in the amount set by the Note ($1,345.73) since April 2009. (Snow Dep.,
There is some confusion as to the individual with whom Plaintiff spoke at BANA
on March 1, 2010. Plaintiff testified that the individual was a “black lady,” but BANA’s
corporate representative testified that Plaintiff actually spoke to Victor Montano. (Snow.
Dep. Doc. #54-3, at 103:1S8; Deposition of Diane Deloney (“Deloney Dep.”), Doc. #54-4,
at 21:11S21.) Nevertheless, while the identify of this individual may be unclear, it is
her that she needed to make at least three “trial” payments in the amount of $991.69 until her
modification paperwork was complete.4 Plaintiff does not know the basis for the $991.69
amount, which is substantially less than the monthly mortgage payment required under her
Note. During this conversation, Plaintiff did not discuss with BANA any terms of a loan
modification. Plaintiff also never received anything in writing or signed anything from
BANA regarding this trial payment, and she never received any paperwork from BANA
stating that it would modify her loan to this payment amount. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.)
Beginning in April 2010, Plaintiff made a payment to BANA in the amount of
$991.69, and made five more payments in this amount through October 2010. From that
point forward, Plaintiff has not made any full or partial mortgage payments to BANA.
Plaintiff stopped making the $991.69 “trial” payments in November 2010, after she learned
that BANA did not consider them to be valid “trial” payments. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.)
BANA aggregated the $991.69 payments and applied them to the outstanding amount
Plaintiff owed once they totaled a full payment. Under the Mortgage, BANA was not
required to apply a partial payment at the time it was accepted. (Doc. #47-2.) The Mortgage
also permits BANA to hold unapplied funds until Plaintiff makes a payment sufficient to
bring the loan current. (Doc. #47-2.)
immaterial for purposes of this opinion.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was told by BANA that after she made these
“trial” payments for three months, her loan would be “refinanced” at that amount. (Compl.
By letter dated March 8, 2010, BANA informed Plaintiff that she could apply for a
loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). In June
2010, BANA again informed Plaintiff that she could apply for a loan modification under
HAMP. Plaintiff applied for a loan modification through BANA in June 2010. On January
7, 2011, Plaintiff was sent written notification from BANA that she was not eligible for a
loan modification. Plaintiff has not made any full or partial mortgage payments to BANA
since October 2010, despite knowing that she has not been approved for a modification of
her loan with BANA or any other entity. Plaintiff still lives at the Property. (Snow Dep.,
Plaintiff filed suit against BANA, Best Interest, and BAC, alleging claims for
negligent mortgage servicing, wanton mortgage servicing, breach of contract, and civil
conspiracy. Best Interest has not appeared in this action.5 Moreover, as of July 1, 2011,
BAC merged with and into BANA. Thus, BANA is the sole defendant left in these
On April 7, 2011, BANA moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6).6 On February 27, 2011, after full briefing by the parties, the Court granted
In any event, Plaintiff’s only claim against Best Interest was dismissed by Order of
this Court on February 27, 2011. (Doc. #33.)
This Motion to Dismiss was also filed on behalf of BAC, as it predates BAC’s
merger into BANA.
BANA’s motion to dismiss as to all of Plaintiff’s claims except for first-party breach of
contract.7 (Doc. #33.) As such, the Court’s only task is to determine whether Plaintiff’s
breach of contract claim passes muster at the summary judgment stage. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court finds that it does not.
Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim
Plaintiff bases her breach of contract claim on BANA’s breach of a “contract to
modify the Plaintiff’s loan.” (Doc. #54, at 6.) However, the most basic element of any
breach of contract claim is “the existence of a valid contract binding the parties in the
action.” S. Med. Health Sys., Inc. v. Vaughn, 669 So. 2d 98, 99 (Ala. 1995) (emphasis
added).8 This would require Plaintiff to show an offer, acceptance, valid consideration, and
mutual assent to the essential terms of the agreement. Armstrong Bus. Servs. v. AmSouth
Bank, 817 So. 2d 665, 673 (Ala. 2001). Plaintiff has failed to make such a showing here.
Plaintiff admittedly does not contend that BANA ever agreed to modify her loan.
(Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3, at 102:4S5.) The undisputed evidence further shows that Plaintiff
never discussed the specific terms of a loan modification with BANA, such as the interest
rate, the principal balance, the loan term, prepayment penalties, or a possible balloon
The Court reasoned that, when taking the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint as
true, which it must at the summary judgment stage, “it is reasonable to infer that the parties
memorialized the loan modification agreement in a writing that satisfies Alabama’s Statute
of Frauds.” (Doc. #33.)
The substantive law of Alabama governs this lawsuit.
payment. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.) Plaintiff did not receive any paperwork from BANA
that discussed modification terms or indicated that a modification of her loan had been
agreed to or approved by BANA. Plaintiff never signed any loan modification paperwork
from BANA. There is no evidence in the record showing any communication between
Plaintiff and BANA wherein BANA agreed to refinance Plaintiff’s loan at $991.69 per
month if she made certain “trial” payments.9 (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.)
If anything, the evidence in the record establishes that BANA clearly informed
Plaintiff that she had not been approved for a loan modification. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.)
Plaintiff admitted to receiving BANA’s January 7, 2011, letter informing her that she was
not eligible for a loan modification and that her request had been denied. (Snow Dep., Doc.
#47-3.) Further, when asked whether she was “contending that anyone with the bank told
you . . . that you were approved for a modification,” Plaintiff testified: “No. They told me
that I needed to make a payment. That it had been several months since I had made a
payment and for me to pay 991.69, until the paperwork was completed. It would be like a
Plaintiff claims in her opposition brief that “[t]he Defendant through Victor
Montano represented to the Plaintiff that if she would make payments of $991.69 for three
months, her loan would be modified.” (Doc. #54, at 6.) Plaintiff cites page 103 of her
deposition to support this statement. However, in reviewing Plaintiff’s deposition, it is clear
that what she actually said was: “A black lady. . . She said, if you want to keep your house,
you’ve got to make a payment. And she said to pay 991.69, until the paperwork was
completed. This would be like a trial payment. And if you can make this for three months,
then, they’ll know that you can make that payment.” (Snow Dep., Doc. #54-3, at 103:1S6.)
Nowhere on page 103 of Plaintiff’s deposition, or, for that matter, anywhere else in
Plaintiff’s deposition excerpts submitted to the Court, does Plaintiff testify that BANA told
her that her loan would be refinanced or modified if she made the $991.69 trial payments.
[trial] payment. And that’s what I did.” (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3, at 101:10S15.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court can reach only one conclusion – that Plaintiff
cannot establish the essential elements of her breach of contract claim. There is no evidence
of an offer and acceptance. In fact, Plaintiff testified that no one from BANA ever told her
that her loan modification request had been approved. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.) There is
similarly no evidence of mutual assent between the parties as to the terms of the alleged
modification, as Plaintiff never discussed with BANA the specific and material terms of a
loan modification beyond the $991.69 “trial” payment. See Elmore, Quillian & Co. v. Parish
Bros., 54 So. 203, 204 (Ala. 1911) (“[A]n agreement to enter into an agreement upon terms
to be afterwards settled between the parties, is a contradiction in terms, and amounts to
nothing.”). Because Plaintiff has failed to prove that she had a valid, binding contract to
modify her loan with BANA, or that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
such a contract exists, summary judgment is due to be GRANTED in favor of BANA on
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
While this ruling completely disposes of Plaintiff’s sole claim, the Court feels it
necessary to address the applicability of Alabama’s Statute of Frauds. Knowing that she
cannot establish the existence of a binding written contract with BANA, Plaintiff purports
to base her breach of contract claim on BANA’s alleged breach of an “oral contract to
modify the Plaintiff’s loan.” (Doc. #54, at 6.) However, even if the evidence did establish
that such a valid, binding oral contract exists between Plaintiff and BANA (and it does not),
this contract would still be unenforceable as a matter of law because it violates Alabama’s
Statute of Frauds. Section 8-9-2(7) of the Alabama Code provides: “Every agreement or
commitment to lend money, delay or forebear repayment thereof or to modify the provisions
of such an agreement or commitment” must be “in writing and subscribed by the party to be
charged therewith or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized in writing.”
By Plaintiff’s own admissions, the agreement purportedly breached by BANA in this case
was one to “modify the provisions” of her previous loan agreement. Thus, to satisfy the
Statute of Frauds, Plaintiff would have to produce evidence of a writing memorializing her
loan modification agreement with BANA, which she has failed to do. See DeVenney v. Hill,
918 So. 2d 106, 115 (Ala. 2005).
Here, the record is completely void of any written agreement between Plaintiff and
BANA to modify her loan. While Plaintiff claims that BANA’s customer service notes
confirming that she was to make “trial” payments of $991.69 establish such a writing, the
actual notes were not submitted as evidence to the Court, and even if they were, the Court
does not find merit in this argument. Indeed, based on evidence that is before the Court,
these notes would presumably reflect Plaintiff’s agreement to pay a $991.69 “trial” amount
and BANA’s agreement to accept this amount. These notes would not reflect the essential
and material terms of a loan modification, such as the interest rate or the loan term, as
Plaintiff admittedly did not discuss these types of details with BANA;10 thus, BANA’s
Although a copy of BANA’s internal customer service notes are not before the
Court, the contents of these notes were discussed with Diane Deloney (“Ms. Deloney”),
BANA’s corporate representative, during her deposition. During Ms. Deloney’s deposition,
she is questioned about some notes input by a BANA employee on March 1, 2010. (Deloney
customer service notes would fall short of the type of “writing” contemplated under the
Statute of Frauds. See Faustak’s Tire Center, Inc. v. Blanchard, 959 So. 2d 1132, 1138 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2006) (“Although a writing relied on to satisfy the Statute of Frauds need not be
a complete contract, it must contain the essential terms of the alleged contract, ‘namely, an
offer and an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to the essential terms of the
agreement.’” (quoting Davis v. Barnfield, 833 So. 2d 58, 62 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002))).
Plaintiff’s additional arguments against the application of the Statute of Frauds are
equally baseless. First, Plaintiff claims that the Statute of Frauds would not bar her breach
of contract claim because her performance was complete in less than a year. More
specifically, Plaintiff argues that she completed paying her $991.69 “trial” payments, and
therefore, her loan should have been modified, in less than a year. Although it is true that
Alabama’s Statute of Frauds generally does not apply to contracts that can be completed in
less than a year, see Ala. Code § 8-9-2(1), this exception does not apply to Plaintiff’s case.
BANA claims: “It is illogical conceptually to argue that performance was completed as to
a loan modification as soon as the agreement to modify was reached. Plaintiff is conflating
the alleged consummation of an agreement with completion of performance.” (Doc. #56, at
Dep., Doc. #54-4.) Specifically, Ms. Deloney is asked: “There’s a note that I’ll read, just so
we can make sure we’re on the same note, that says WOM is locked with MHA offer and
trial payments in the amount of 991.69. HO needs to make trial payments. What does that
mean?” (Deloney Doc., Doc. #54-4, at 21:22S22:4.) Ms. Deloney responds: “That means
that we agree to take trial payments of the 991.69, that the homeowner needs to continue to
make the trial payments.” (Deloney Dep., Doc. #54-4, 22:5S8.) This is the extent of detail
given to the Court with respect to BANA’s customer service notes and is the basis for the
Court’s above presumption as to their content.
2.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff signed a Note and 30-year Mortgage. Thus, her performance,
whether under the original Note and Mortgage, or a modification to them, could not have
been performed in less than a year.
Plaintiff’s second argument that her modification agreement with BANA was an
executed, rather than executory, contract and, therefore, not subject to the Statute of Frauds
is also flawed. Again, Plaintiff contends that she completed her performance under the
contract when she made certain trial payments and, in doing so, rendered the contract an
executed one. However, as noted above, Plaintiff’s performance was not fully complete
when she made her trial payments; rather, her performance, whether under the purported
modification or the original Note and Mortgage, would be complete only when she paid the
Note in full. Thus, the executed versus executory distinction is nothing more than a red
herring that does not salvage Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
Finally, Plaintiff cannot rely on her argument that BANA should be estopped from
asserting the Statute of Frauds as an affirmative defense based on purported fraudulent
representations made by BANA in the formation of the modification contract.11 Even
assuming, arguendo, that a modification contract exists, there is absolutely no evidence
To the extent Plaintiff attempts to assert or resurrect any direct fraud claims against
BANA in her opposition, rather than use such an argument in an attempt to estop BANA
from asserting the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense, such a claim is not permitted
at this stage of the proceedings. See also Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald and Co., 382 F.3d
1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that new claims cannot be raised at the summary
judgment stage; “A plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief
opposing summary judgment.”).
suggesting that BANA made any misrepresentations to Plaintiff during its formation or in
connection with it.
In sum, even if Plaintiff could prove that she had a valid, binding oral contract with
BANA to modify her loan, this contract would still be unenforceable as a matter of law
because it does not satisfy Alabama’s Statute of Frauds or fall within any of the exceptions
The Original Note and Mortgage
To the extent Plaintiff’s remaining breach of contract claim is based on BANA’s
alleged breach of the original Note and Mortgage, as opposed to a loan modification
agreement, this claim similarly fails. Plaintiff alleges that BANA assessed her “illegal,
unauthorized, or improper” charges. (Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3.) It appears that this
contention stems from Plaintiff’s belief that BANA did not apply her $991.69 partial
payments properly. Plaintiff, however, has produced no evidence to support this contention.
Indeed, when asked “are you contending that there was an improper fee, or charge, on your
account,” Plaintiff replied:
Well, for example, when we [sic] they told me to pay the 991.69, sometimes
it was applied, sometimes it wasn’t. Sometimes it had, like, a partial payment
on there. And it was rather ambiguous when I – they told me to pay that. How
it was applied. I didn’t ever know if it was going to the principal, or the
interest, or both, or what. It just showed partial payment.
(Snow Dep., Doc. #47-3, at 42:9S17) (emphasis added). Plaintiff further testified, when
asked if she was aware of any illegal or unauthorized charges by BANA that caused a default
of her loan, “I don’t know how they applied the monies I gave them. It’s a mystery. So, I
don’t know what they did. But I feel like I was taken advantage of.” (Snow Dep., Doc. #473, at 134:14S18.) Plaintiff’s apparent lack of understanding as to how her $991.69 partial
payments were applied to her account is not sufficient evidence that BANA was assessing
her illegal, unauthorized, or improper charges in breach of the law.
Plaintiff does not contend that BANA never applied her $991.69 partial payments to
her account. Indeed, the evidence shows that BANA aggregated Plaintiff’s partial payments
until they constituted a full payment and then applied them to her outstanding balance.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, this was permissible under the terms of the Mortgage.
(Doc. #47-2, at ¶ 2.) Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to prove that BANA breached
the original Note or Mortgage, or that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
such a breached occurred, summary judgment is due to be GRANTED in favor of BANA on
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim to the extent it is based on the breach of the original Note
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is based on an alleged
violation of HAMP in connection with the modification process, such a claim fails as a
matter of law. The Eleventh Circuit has clearly held that no private right of action exists
under HAMP and that alleged HAMP violations cannot form the basis of an actionable
breach of contract claim. See Miller v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 677 F.3d 1113, 1116S17
(11th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #46)
The sole remaining breach of contract claim asserted by Plaintiff Susan H.
Blake against Defendant BANA is dismissed with prejudice because there are no genuine
issues of material fact and Defendant BANA is entitled to a judgment in its favor as to this
All remaining deadlines and hearings in this matter, including the January 28,
2013 trial, are TERMINATED.
Because this Opinion and Order resolves all claims in this action, the Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to close this file. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this the 17th day of January, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?