Moore et al v. Seterus, Inc. et al
Filing
48
ORDER granting 33 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/16/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment/Chart) (cmj)
<![CDATA[
Payment to Suntrust 1
Payment applied on
Applied to “Due Date”
January 13, 2012
March 8, 2012
May 1, 2011 (doc. 38-18, p. 5)
February 27, 2012
March 8, 2012
June 1, 2011 “
March 30, 2012
May 25, 2012
July 2011 (doc. 38-18, p. 4)
No April payment
May 7, 2012, the account activity statement shows a “Statutory Expense Disbursement”
charge against account of $5.59, $206.54 and an “Attorney Advance Disbursement” charge
against account of $360.00. (Doc. 38-18, p. 4) Previously on November 22, 2011, the
statement showed a $200.00 “Statutory Expense Disbursement” charge against the account
and a $180.00 “Attorney Advance Disbursement” charge against the account (Id. p. 5). These
appear to be part of the Proof of Claim (see below).
May 29, 2012
June 25, 2012
August 2011 (doc. 38-18, p. 4, 9)
June 1, 2012 - Seterus acquires account.
Proof of claim
June 8, 2012 - Suntrust files a Proof of Claim for $11,357.04 for 8 pre-petition past due
monthly payments (May 1, 2011 through December 1, 2011) and prepetition expenses of
$1,623.81 (late charges $427.19, attorney fees $540.00 ($180.00 + $360.00 = $540.00, doc.
38-13, p. 2), advertisement $206.54, title $200.00, property inspection fees $135.00, escrow
shortage $109.49, mail $5.59) + attorney fee for filing the Claim $425.00. Total $13,405.85.
June 25, 2012
June 25, 2012
September 2011 (doc. 38-18, p. 9)
August 31, 2012
August 31, 2012
October 2011
“
No payments July, August, September 2012
1
Payments for less than the full amount due were deposited into the Moores’ suspense account until
there were enough funds available to make a full payment. Also, they frequently paid in even sums,
i.e. $1,450.00, $1,500.00, $1,600.00, and the excess between their actual payment due and the
payment made was deposited in the suspense account. When a sufficient amount had accrued, the
funds in the suspense account were applied to a payment.
Payment to Seterus
Payment applied on
Applied to “Due Date”
October 22, 2012 - Seterus receives $13,405.85 from Bankruptcy Court for
Suntrust’s claim, which is applied to 9 past-due payments (doc. 38-7)
October 22, 2012
October 23, 20122
November 2011 through July
2012 (doc. 38-18, p. 9)
The 9 past-due payments at $1,476.81 each total $13,291.29, and subtracting this sum from
$13,405.85 yields a balance of $114.56. Seterus states that the remaining $114.56 “was held
in suspense until a full Periodic Payment could be made” (Doc. 40, p. 4, n. 3).
October 31, 2012
October 31, 2012
August 2012 (doc. 38-18, p. 9)
October 31, 2012
October 31, 2012
September 2012
“
No payment November 2012 through January 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
October 2012
“
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
November 2012
“
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
December 2012
“
April 1, 2013
April 1, 2013
January 2013
“
April 10, 2013
April 10, 2013
February 2013
“
April 10, 2013
April 10, 2013
March 2013
“
No March payment 2013
On April 15, 2013, the Moores paid $726.00 for legal fees and costs for the
Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay (doc. 38-11, Order). The
Activity Statement shows the $726.00 as a suspense deposit (doc. 38-18, p. 9).
April 29, 2013
April 29, 2013
April 2013 (doc. 38-18, p. 9)
June 6, 2013
June 6, 2013
May 2013
“
July 19, 2013
July 19, 2013
June 2013
“
No payment May 2013
2
Payments from the suspense account (doc. 38-18, p. 9), not a direct payment from the Moores.
2
Payment to Seterus
Payment applied on
Applied to “Due Date”
September 12, 2013
September 12, 2013
July 2013 (doc. 38-18, p. 9)
October 15, 2013
October 15, 2013
August 2013
“
December 31, 2013
December 31, 2013
September 2013
“
January 31, 2014
January 31, 2014
October 2013
“
February 28, 2014
February 28, 2014
November 2013
“
March 31, 2014
March 31, 2014
December 2013
“
April 30, 2014
April 30, 2014
January 2014
“
June 2, 2014
June 2, 2014
February 2014
“
July 7, 2014
July 7, 20143
March 2014
“
July 7, 2014
July 7, 2014
April 2014
“
July 31, 2014
July 31, 2014
May 2014
“
September 10, 2014
June 2014
“
November 6, 2014
July 2014 (doc. 38-18, p. 10)
No payment August 2013
No payment November 2013
No payment May 2014
No payment August 2014
September 10, 2014
No payment October 2014
November 6, 2014
No payment December 2014
3
Payment from the suspense account, not a direct payment from the Moores. This payment appears
to include the $726.00 paid by the Moores pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court Order (doc. 38-18, p. 9).
3
Payment to Seterus
Payment applied on
Applied to “Due Date”
January 30, 2015
January 30, 2015
August 2014 (doc. 38-18, p. 10)
February 27, 2015
February 27, 2015
September 2014
“
March 2015, the Moores bankruptcy is dismissed.
No payment March and April 2015
May 7, 2015 ($14,331.71)
May 8, 2015
October 2014 through June 2015
(doc. 38-18, p. 11-12)
The balance remaining, after application of $14,331,71 to nine monthly payments
($13,291.29), was $1,040.42. That sum plus $126.69 from the suspense account
were applied to late charges $1,167.11 (doc. 38-18, p. 11).
June 24, 2015, $6,256.06 was refunded from the escrow account (doc. 1, complaint, doc. 3818, p. 11), Seterus explains that an escrow analysis reduced the monthly payment to $1,307.52
and a surplus of escrow was refunded (doc. 38-18, p. 2).
No payment June 2015
July 31, 2015
August 3, 2015
July 2015 (doc. 38-18, p. 11)
August 6, 2015, Seterus responds to the Moores’ QWR/NSE (doc. 38-18)
No payment August and September 2015
October 7, 2015
October 8, 2015
August 2015 (doc. 38-6, p.4)
October 13, 2015
October 14, 2015
September 2015 (doc. 38-6, p. 4)
October 21, 2015
October 22, 2015
October 2015
“
No payment for November 2015 through January 2016.
February 29, 2016
March 7, 2016
4
November 2015 (doc. 38-6, p. 3)
]]>
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?
