Ward v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 11/9/12. (ASL)

FILED
2012 Nov-09 PM 02:25
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE WARD,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-AR-0835-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court has for consideration the motion of defendant, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (incorrectly named in the complaint as “Wells
Fargo

Home

Mortgage”)

(“Wells

pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P.

Fargo”),

for

summary

judgment,

Plaintiff, Willie Ward (“Ward”),

has not responded to defendant’s Rule 56 motion.

Nevertheless, it

is incumbent upon the court to determine for itself if there are
undisputed facts to support the movant’s Rule 56 motion. Ward, the
non-movant, is entitled to all inferences that can be drawn in his
favor.
The court has considered all materials submitted by Wells
Fargo, including its rendition of the material facts. If this case
were not distinguishable from Duke, et al. v. Nationstar, LLC, CV12-AR-0157-S, in which this court denied a Rooker-Feldman defense,
and thus far has denied a res judicata defense, this court would
deny

Wells

Fargo’s

motion,

but

there

is

a

crucial

factual

distinction between this case and Nationstar that renders the
undisputed facts in this case dispositive in favor of Wells Fargo,

both under Rooker-Feldman and res judicata.
This court does not retreat from what it said in Nationstar,
in criticism of the sub-prime mortgage industry, but in that case,
the mortgagee itself purchased the property at foreclosure sale,
and thereof succeeded in obtaining a state court judgment for
possession.

Wells Fargo was not a party to the state court action

preceding this case, but the purchaser at foreclosure sale, Freddie
Mac, shares a succession in interest with Wells Fargo, a fact not
present in Nationstar. Under the circumstances, Wells Fargo enjoys
the protection that Freddie Mac has by virtue of the state court
judgment.
Ward has not disputed the facts or principles of law contained
in Wells Fargo’s motion and attachments, and the court finds no
misstatements or reasons to question the facts or law as stated by
Wells Fargo.

Accordingly, the facts and conclusions of law stated

by Wells Fargo are hereby ADOPTED by this court as the undisputed
facts and as its conclusions of law.

By separate order, summary

judgment will be granted in favor of Wells Fargo.
DONE this 9th day of November, 2012.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE