GRAY v. LAW OFFICES OF PEGGY L BROWN PC et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Sanctions Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 05/20/2019 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
SANDRA GRAY,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

PEGGY L. BROWN, et al.,

*

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-153 (CDL)

*

O R D E R
Presently pending before the Court is a motion for Rule 11
sanctions filed by Bank of New York Mellon (“Mellon”) and Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) (collectively, “Defendants”).1

As

discussed below, the motion (ECF No. 56) is denied.
Plaintiff alleges that her signature was forged on closing
documents

when

her

late

husband

obtained

a

refinance

secured by property that she owned as the sole owner.

loan

Plaintiff

insists that she did not sign the loan documents and that there
was no legitimate borrower-lender relationship between her and
the lender.
promissory

She contends that Mellon accepted assignment of the
note

and

security

deed

and

that

Ocwen

undertook

servicing the loan even though they both had enough information
to know that her signature on the security deed was forged and
that there was thus no legitimate borrower-lender relationship.
1

Also pending is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF
No. 63). That motion is not yet ripe.

Plaintiff asserts negligence claims against Mellon and Ocwen, as
well as a claim for declaratory judgment, seeking declaration
that the promissory note and security deed must be canceled due
to forgery and fraud.2
Defendants filed a motion seeking sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Defendants presented evidence that

Plaintiff’s handwriting expert opined that the signatures on the
loan

documents

handwriting
hers.

are

expert

Defendants

probably

opined
also

Plaintiff’s,

that

the

presented

and

signatures

evidence

Defendants’

are

that

definitely

although

the

notary who notarized one of the loan documents did not remember
notarizing the document, she most likely would have followed her
normal

process

of

verifying

notarizing the document.

Plaintiff’s

identity

before

Defendants argue that because all of

Plaintiff’s claims are based on her assertion that she was not
present for the closing of the loan and did not sign any of the
loan

documents,

her

claims

cannot

succeed

since

the

only

evidence that Plaintiff’s signatures were forged is Plaintiff’s
own self-serving assertion that she did not sign the documents.3

2

Plaintiff also asserts claims against several Defendants who were
involved in the closing. Those claims are not at issue in the Rule 11
motion.
3 Defendants also argue in passing and without citing any authority
that no duty exists under Georgia law that would support a negligence
claim against them.
In essence, Defendants seek summary judgment on
the negligence claims without satisfying the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a).
The present record does not support
summary judgment on the negligence claims.

2

If the Court were to ignore Plaintiff’s assertion that she
did not sign the documents, then Plaintiff’s claims would fail
as a matter of law because no evidence exists supporting them.
Under those circumstances, Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of her
claims against Defendants would be a violation of Rule 11(b) and
sanctionable under Rule 11(c).
Plaintiff’s

assertion

simply

But the Court cannot ignore

because

uncorroborated by other evidence.

it

is

self-serving

and

Cf. United States v. Stein,

881 F.3d 853, 854 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that an affidavit
“may

create

an

issue

of

material

fact

and

preclude

summary

judgment even if it is self-serving and uncorroborated”).

A

jury may conclude based on all of the evidence that Plaintiff’s
assertion must be disregarded as a lie, but the Court may not
disregard it at this stage in the litigation.

Therefore, the

Court finds that Defendants have not established a violation of
Rule 11(b), and Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions (ECF
No. 56) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of May, 2019.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3