USA v. Hunter et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 6 USA's Motion for Summary Judgment. The government is directed to submit a proposed judgment in rem ordering foreclosure of the mortgages. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/13/12. (hph)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 2:11CV00148 BSM

CHRISTOPHER BARRETT HUNTER and
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The motion of plaintiff United States of America for summary judgment and for a
judgment in rem foreclosing on defendant Christopher Hunter’s mortgages [Doc. No. 6] is
granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Hunter executed and delivered two promissory notes on May 8, 2008, to the United
States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Farm Service Agency (“FSA”). Statement
of Facts ¶ 1. The two promissory notes were in the amounts of $52,410 and $220,701.08 and
were payable in annual installments beginning February 1, 2009. Id. As collateral for those
notes, Hunter and his then-wife granted and conveyed a mortgage to the USDA and FSA on
property in Cross County, Arkansas. Id. ¶ 2. The mortgages were recorded in the records
of the Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Cross County. Id. ¶ 3. Sara Henry Hunter conveyed
all her right, title, and interest in the mortgaged property to Christopher Hunter by quit claim
deed, which was also recorded in the records of the Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Cross
County. Id. ¶ 4. The payments due on the promissory notes are in default as no payment has
been received by FSA on those notes since May 29, 2009. Id. ¶ 5. There is currently due and

owing unpaid principal in the amount of $181,457.37 and $19,747.53 on the two promissory
notes, with interest accruing at the rate of $16.6928 dollars per day. Id. ¶ 6.
II. DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is proper if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to Hunter, no genuine issues of material fact exist and defendants are entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 533 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2008). Hunter
cannot survive the motions for summary judgment merely by pointing to disputed facts; the
facts in dispute must be material to the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1985). If the facts alleged by Hunter, when viewed in the light most
favorable to his case, would not allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor, then summary
judgment should be granted in favor of defendants. Bloom v. Metro Heart Group of St.
Louis, Inc., 440 F.3d 1025, 1029 (8th Cir. 2006).
The government’s statement of undisputed fact is unopposed and the facts contained
therein are therefore deemed admitted. The government’s motion for summary judgment
[Doc. No. 6] is also unopposed and is therefore granted. The government is directed to
submit a proposed judgment in rem ordering foreclosure of the mortgages.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of August 2012.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2