Garcia et al v. Roybar, LLC
Filing
45
ORDER granting 36 Motion for summary judgment; granting 44 Motion for Default Judgment. Roybar shall file its motion for entry of final judgment of foreclosure by 8/1/16. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 6/27/2016. (SEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JULIO GARCIA and CECILIA
GARCIA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 3:15-cv-725-J-32PDB
ROYBAR, LLC, a New York limited
liability company,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case arises out of a defaulted residential mortgage that was the subject of
a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding wherein Plaintiffs Julio and Cecilia Garcia
abandoned their interest in the property securing repayment of a loan to DefendantCounterclaimant Roybar, LLC. 1 On January 12, 2016, the parties reached a
settlement contingent upon the Court entering a non-final partial judgment
establishing Roybar’s right to foreclose its mortgage and reserving jurisdiction to
determine the amount due and the date of the foreclosure sale. (Doc. 20). To facilitate
settlement, Roybar has filed the pending motions for default judgment and non-final
summary judgment. (Docs. 36, 44).
The bankruptcy case was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, Case No. 13-bk-02344-PMG. (Doc. 8
at 3).
1
I.
BACKGROUND
In June 2005, the Garcias executed and delivered a promissory note to First
Franklin, A Division of National City Bank of Indiana, with a principal amount of
$330,000 plus interest (the “Note”). (Doc. 36 at 2). To secure payment, the Garcias
executed and delivered to First Franklin a mortgage dated June 24, 2005 (the
“Mortgage”), which was recorded in Official Records Book 2560 at Page 594 in the
public records of Clay County, Florida on July 12, 2005 and encumbers the Garcias’
interest in the property at issue, 1921 Holly Oaks Drive, Orange Park, Florida 32065
(the “Property”). (Id.; Doc. 1 at 2).
The Note and Mortgage were eventually assigned to Roybar pursuant to an
Assignment of Mortgage dated August 7, 2009, and Roybar hired Levites Realty
Mortgage Servicing to service the loan. (Doc. 36 at 2). Since that time, Roybar has held
the Note and Mortgage and has not assigned or transferred its interest. (Id.).
On June 17, 2015, the Garcias filed this action against Roybar, alleging
servicing abnormalities. (Doc. 1). Roybar answered and filed a counterclaim seeking
foreclosure of the Mortgage. (Doc. 8). The parties settled the case (Doc. 20), and
thereafter, Roybar filed an amended counterclaim joining as Counterclaim Defendants
Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. and Oakleaf Plantation Property Owners
Association, Inc. (Doc. 24). Roybar states that Wells Fargo has a judgment lien
recorded on the Property, and Oakleaf has certain restrictions, covenants, conditions,
and easements that encumber and may affect the Property.2 (Doc. 36 at 3).
2
Roybar states that Oakleaf has not recorded a lien on the Property. (Doc. 36
2
Roybar moved for default judgment against Wells Fargo (Doc. 44) and non-final
summary judgment against all parties (Doc. 36). The Garcias and Oakleaf filed notices
of non-opposition of the motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 37, 43). In addition,
Wells Fargo has not appeared in this case, rendering both of Roybar’s motions
unopposed.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A.
Default Judgment
The mere entry of a default by the Clerk does not, in itself, warrant the Court
entering a default judgment. See Tyco Fire & Sec. LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860,
863 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200,
1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Rather, a defaulted defendant is only deemed to admit the
plaintiff’s well-pled allegations of fact. Id. Furthermore, a default judgment bars the
defendant from contesting those facts on appeal. Id. Therefore, before entering a
default judgment for damages, a court must ensure that the well-pled allegations in
the complaint, which are taken as true due to the default, actually state a substantive
cause of action and that there is a substantive, sufficient basis in the pleadings for the
particular relief sought. Id. “Once liability is established, the court turns to the issue
of relief.” Enpat, Inc. v. Budnic, 773 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2011). “Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), ‘[a] default judgment must not differ in kind
from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings,’ and a court may
conduct hearings when it needs to determine the amount of damages, establish the
at 5-6).
3
truth of any allegation by evidence, or investigate any other matter.” Enpat, 773 F.
Supp. 2d at 1313 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)).
B.
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper where “there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact” and “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c). “The burden of demonstrating the satisfaction of this standard lies with the
movant, who must present pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, that establish the absence of
any genuine material, factual dispute.” Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d
1248, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). An issue is genuine when
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must draw
inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve
all reasonable doubts in that party’s favor. See Centurion Air Cargo, Inc. v. United
Parcel Serv. Co., 420 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005). However, “Rule 56 mandates
the entry of summary judgment, upon motion, against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to his case on which he bears the
burden of proof at trial.” Schechter v. Ga. State Univ., 341 F. App’x 560, 562 (11th Cir.
Aug. 12, 2009) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
III.
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Roybar moves for default judgment against Wells Fargo under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) on the grounds that Wells Fargo has failed to appear, plead,
4
or respond to Roybar’s counterclaim for foreclosure. (Doc. 44). Roybar does not seek
monetary damages against Wells Fargo but instead requests that the Court enter a
judgment that any interest Wells Fargo has in the Property be deemed inferior to
Roybar’s interest and may be foreclosed when the Court enters its final judgment of
foreclosure.
Roybar alleges in its Verified Amended Counterclaim for Foreclosure that while
Wells Fargo may have some claim or demand to the property by virtue of a Final
Summary Judgment recorded in Official Records Book 3329 at Page 175, that interest
is inferior, subordinate, and subject to Roybar’s Mortgage. (Doc. 24 at 7). Wells Fargo
appears to have been properly served with the verified amended counterclaim and
summons. (Doc. 26). In addition, clerk’s default was entered against Wells Fargo on
April 26, 2016. (Doc. 41). Finally, although Roybar served Wells Fargo with the motion
for default judgment, Wells Fargo has not filed a response. On this record, Roybar is
entitled to default judgment on its foreclosure claim against Wells Fargo.
IV.
MOTION FOR NON-FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Roybar’s motion for non-final summary judgment on the Garcias’ claims and its
counterclaim for foreclosure against the Garcias, Wells Fargo, and Oakleaf is
unopposed. The Garcias and Oakleaf filed notices of non-opposition to the motion
(Docs. 37, 43), and Wells Fargo is in default, supra Part III.
Given the Garcias’ non-opposition, the Court finds that summary judgment is
appropriate in favor of Roybar and against the Garcias on all of the claims raised in
the complaint (Doc. 1) and in favor of Roybar on its counterclaim for foreclosure (Doc.
24). Further, summary judgment is also appropriate against Oakleaf in light of its
5
notice of non-opposition. Finally, summary judgment is appropriate against Wells
Fargo following its default.
ORDERED:
1.
Roybar’s Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against Wells Fargo
Dealer Services, Inc. (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.
2.
The Clerk shall enter default judgment in favor of Counter-Claimant
Roybar, LLC and against Counter-Defendant Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. on
Roybar’s counterclaim for foreclosure, whereby Wells Fargo’s interest in 1921 Holly
Oaks Drive, Orange Park, Florida 32065 is deemed inferior to Roybar’s interest and
may be foreclosed when the Court enters its final judgment of foreclosure.
3.
Plaintiff and Roybar’s Agreed Non-Final Motion for Summary Judgment,
to which Oakleaf is not opposed, (Doc. 36), is GRANTED.
4.
Roybar shall file its motion for entry of final judgment of foreclosure and
email a Microsoft Word version of its proposed final judgment of foreclosure to
chambers_flmd_corrigan@flmd.uscourts.gov by August 1, 2016.
5.
Roybar shall send Wells Fargo a copy of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 27th day of June, 2016.
sj
Copies:
Counsel of record
6
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?