Ward v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Filing 19

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

Download PDF
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

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?