Bryan W. Hummel and Sandra M. Dahl Living Trust v. Rushmore Loan Managaement LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendants are enjoined throughout the remainder of this case from proceeding with the trustees sale of the real property located at 2692 Avenida Grande, Bullhead City, Arizona, 86442. Plaintiff shall provide security in the amount of $5,000 on or before 7/12/2017. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/14/17.(DXD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bryan W. Hummel and Sandra M. Dahl Living Trust, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 No. CV-17-08034-PCT-DGC ORDER v. Rushmore Loan Management, LLC and DiTech Financial, LLC, Defendants. 15 16 The Court entered a temporary restraining order on June 2, 2017. Doc. 19. On 17 June 14, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. 18 Defendant Rushmore Loan Management, LLC made clear in its response (Doc. 23) and 19 at the hearing that it does not oppose entry of a preliminary injunction provided the Court 20 requires Plaintiff to provide security under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure. Plaintiff argues (Doc. 24) that security should not be required. 22 23 The Court has discretion in setting the amount of security under Rule 65(c). Several considerations are relevant. 24 On one hand, the loan at issue in this case has been in default for approximately 25 eight years, and Defendants have waited to initiate trustee sale procedures. This suggests 26 that delay has not been viewed as a serious injury by Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff 27 suggests, without providing any detail, that it would be unable to provide a substantial 28 bond and would lose the property without an opportunity to litigate the claims in this case 1 if the bond amount is substantial. 2 On the other hand, Rushmore is losing monthly payment amounts for each month 3 of delay even if it holds a security interest in the property. Rushmore asserted without 4 contradiction that the loan amount exceeds the value of the property, meaning that 5 Rushmore will not recover future lost loan payments even if it eventually is permitted to 6 sell the property. In this respect, Rushmore is injured by delay. Although Plaintiff 7 contends that it is not the borrower on the loan, Plaintiff is the living trust of the 8 borrowers and the borrowers continue to reside in the property. The Court cannot accept 9 Plaintiff’s suggestion that it should be viewed as a legal entity entirely separate from the 10 individuals who agreed to repay the loan. 11 The Court concludes that some security should be provided for the preliminary 12 injunction. Because Defendants’ years of delay suggests that the ongoing injury is not as 13 significant as Rushmore now suggests, and in light of Plaintiff’s uncontradicted assertion 14 that it could not afford the amount of the bond requested by Rushmore (the equivalent of 15 $3,000 per month for the duration of this case), the Court will set a bond amount lower 16 than Rushmore requests. Plaintiff will be required to post a bond or provide other 17 security in the amount of $5,000 under Rule 65(c). 18 IT IS ORDERED: 19 1. For reasons stated the Court’s previous order (Doc. 19), a preliminary 20 injunction is granted. Defendants are enjoined throughout the remainder of this case 21 from proceeding with the trustee’s sale of the real property located at 2692 Avenida 22 Grande, Bullhead City, Arizona, 86442. 23 2. 24 July 12, 2017. 25 Plaintiff shall provide security in the amount of $5,000 on or before Dated this 14th day of June, 2017. 26 27 28 -2-

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?