Jones v. ReconTrust Company NA et al

Filing 76

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Bank's motion to strike sur-reply (doc. 74 ), DENYING plaintiff's motion to compel agency (doc. 63 ), and DENYING plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents (doc. 51 ). IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED GRANTING the Bank's motion for summary judgment (doc. 60 ), and DENYING plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (doc. 69 ). The clerk shall enter final judgment. (See document for full details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/19/13. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ReconTrust Co., Bank of America)
Mortgage Corporate Office/Headquarters,)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. CV-12-8079-PCT-FJM

James L. Jones, Jr.,
9
10
11
12
13
14

ORDER

15
16

The court has before it Bank of America’s (“Bank”) motion for summary judgment

17

(doc. 60), plaintiff’s response (doc. 67), the Bank’s reply (doc. 70), plaintiff’s sur-reply (doc.

18

71), the Bank’s motion to strike the sur-reply (doc. 74), and plaintiff’s response (doc. 75).

19

We also have before us plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 69), the Bank’s

20

response (doc. 72), plaintiff’s reply (doc. 73); plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

21

documents (doc. 51), the Bank’s response (doc. 56); and plaintiff’s motion to compel agency

22

(doc. 63), and the Bank’s response (doc. 66).

23

I

24

On March 15, 2007, Countrywide Bank made a mortgage loan to Joy Sondeno in the

25

principal amount of $123,000.00 (“Loan”) related to the purchase of real property located

26

in Kingman, Arizona (“Property”). DSOF, ex. 1. On February 13, 2012, Sondeno executed

27

a quit claim deed purporting to transfer her interest in the Property to James L. Jones, Jr.,

28

plaintiff in this case. Sondeno was in default and the loan was in foreclosure at the time of

1

the transfer, the last payment having been made in May 2011. Compl., ex. B. On February

2

21, 2012, plaintiff sent the Bank a purported “Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) instrument

3

#227" in the amount of $148,468.82 for payment on the Loan. Id. Although plaintiff refers

4

to the alleged payoff document an “EFT,” the copy of the item plaintiff attached as exhibit

5

B to his complaint appears to be a personal check. See Compl., ex. B. Shortly after sending

6

the purported payoff funds, plaintiff filed this action on March 21, 2012, seeking to quiet title

7

to the Property. On April 11, 2012, the Bank sent Plaintiff a letter rejecting EFT #227,

8

explaining that the EFT was an unacceptable form of tender and informing plaintiff that the

9

payoff must be made with “certified funds,” including “money order, cashier’s check, or wire

10

transfer.” DSOF, ex. 5, ex. E. It is undisputed that the Bank never accepted funds from

11

plaintiff. There is no claim that plaintiff ever re-tendered the funds in a form acceptable to

12

the Bank. The Loan remains in default and carries a balance of $155,317.48.
II

13
14
15

Plaintiff’s sur-reply to the Bank’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 71) is not
authorized by LRCiv 7.2 and is therefore stricken (doc. 74).
III

16
17

Plaintiff’s motion to compel agency (doc. 63) demands that the Bank’s lawyer provide

18

proof of his status as agent of the Bank. We have already held that defendant’s lawyers are

19

not required to prove that they have a contract to represent defendant and that plaintiff’s

20

demand is frivolous. See Order (doc. 26) at 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel agency is denied

21

(doc. 63).

22

IV

23

Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a party may discover information that is

24

relevant to the party’s claim or defense. Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks the production

25

of documents related to a loan to which he is not a party. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to

26

compel a currency trace, an S3-A registration statement, a 424 B-5 prospectus, the original

27

deed of trust and promissory note, and answers to various legal questions. None of these

28

documents are relevant to plaintiff’s quiet title claim, and the burden of the compelled
-2-

1

discovery would outweigh its likely benefit. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

2

documents is denied (doc. 51).

3

V

4

Both parties move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s quiet title claim. To quiet title

5

a plaintiff must allege that he possesses title to the property, and that he has paid off any

6

mortgage in full. Farrell v. West, 57 Ariz. 490, 491, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (1941) (“[I]f it

7

appears there is an unsatisfied balance due a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court

8

will not quiet the title until and unless he pays off such mortgage lien.”). The mere offer to

9

pay without actual payment is insufficient to maintain an action to quiet title.

10

Plaintiff’s claim to title is questionable. There is a lawful security interest on the

11

Property that pre-dated plaintiff’s acquisition. Therefore, even assuming plaintiff has any

12

title to the Property it is subject to that security interest. In the absence of a tender of the full

13

amount due on the Loan and in a form acceptable to the Bank, plaintiff cannot successfully

14

maintain an action for quiet title. Plaintiff has not shown that he has paid off the Loan.

15

Therefore, he is not entitled to quiet title to the Property. Plaintiff’s motion for summary

16

judgment is denied (doc. 69). The Bank’s motion for summary judgment is granted (doc.

17

60).
VI

18
19

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Bank’s motion to strike sur-reply (doc. 74),

20

DENYING plaintiff’s motion to compel agency (doc. 63), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion

21

to compel production of documents (doc. 51).

22
23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the Bank’s motion for summary
judgment (doc. 60), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 69).

24

The clerk shall enter final judgment.

25

DATED this 19th day of June, 2013.

26
27
28
-3-