USA v. Stacy et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiff United States' Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Kristen R. Stacy, formerly known as Kristen R. Holley, 16 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff United States, on behalf of its Department of Agricultur e, Rural Development, is GRANTED an In Personam Judgment against Defendant Kristen R. Stacy, formerly known as Kristen R. Holley, in the principal sum of $93,584.17, plus interest at the contract rate in the amount of $7,259.22 as of May 19 , 2011, plus the interest credit subsidy granted in the amount of $8,284.80, plus amounts in escrow and other pending fees and charges to the account as provided by the loan instruments and applicable law in the amount of $2,206.13, for a t otal unpaid balance of $111,334.32, plus interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of $16.3717 per day from May 19, 2011, until the date of entry of this Judgment, together with interest on the Judgment amount at the legal rate of interest in effect as of the date of this Judgment, computed daily and compounded annually until paid in full, and for the costs of this action. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 6/20/2011.(CBD)cc: COR, pro se dft
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Frankfort)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
KRISTEN R. STACY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3: 11-11-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
This matter is pending for consideration of Plaintiff United States’ motion for summary
judgment regarding the claims asserted against Defendant Kristen R. Stacy, formerly known as
Kristen R. Holley. [Record No. 16] For the reasons discussed herein, the motion will be granted.
A separate Order of Sale will be entered this date.
I.
The United States filed this foreclosure action on behalf of the Department of Agriculture,
Rural Development (formerly, Farmers Home Administration and as the Rural Economic and
Community Development Service) against Defendants Kristen Stacey, David Edward Stacy, and
B&R Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., following the default of a promissory mortgage note
secured by certain real estate located in Anderson County, Kentucky. [Record No. 1] B&R
Heating and Air Conditioning was joined as a defendant by virtue of a Notice of Judgment Lien
filed against Defendant David Stacy and recorded on March 30, 2010. [Id., ¶ 12] B&R Heating
and Air Conditioning filed its Answer, Cross-Claim and Counterclaim in this action on March
-1-
23, 2011. [Record No. 3]. On April 7, 2011, Defendant Kristen Stacy filed a pro se Answer to
the United States’ Complaint. Through her Answer, Defendant Stacy did not dispute that the
promissory mortgage note secured by the Anderson County real estate was in default. [Record
No. 5] However, she outlined the events leading to the default and her attempts to avoid
foreclosure of the Anderson County property. In light of her current financial condition, this
defendant requested that the United States accept a deed on the property in lieu of foreclosure.
[Id., p. 3]
On May 26, 2011, the United States requested entry of default against Defendant David
Stacy. [Record No. 8] That relief was granted and, on May 31, 2011, a default judgment was
entered with respect to this defendant. [Record Nos. 13, 19] Additionally, on May 27, 2011, the
United States moved for summary judgment against Defendant Kristen Stacy. [Record No. 16]
Defendant Kristen Stacy has not responded to the motion within the time provided by the Local
Rules. Finally, Defendant, Cross-Claimant, and Counterclaimant B&R Heating and Air
Conditioning, Inc., was dismissed from the action by agreement on May 27, 2011. [Record No.
15]
II.
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).
A genuine issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving
-2-
party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
In other words, the determination must be “whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251–52.
The moving party initially bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its
motion. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323). The movant does so by bringing forward the relevant portions of the record which
establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. Once the movant has satisfied its
burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and produce specific evidence to
demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. The nonmoving party must do
more than cast some “metaphysical doubt” on the material facts. Id. (citing Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). It must present significant,
probative evidence of a genuine issue in order to defeat the motion for summary judgment. Id.
In reviewing the motion, the Court must view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586–87.
In the present case, Defendant Kristen Stacy does not dispute that the promissory
mortgage note is in default and that the United States is entitled to the relief requested. While
her pro se Answer seeks settlement which would avoid a resulting deficiency, the United States
is not required to accept this proposal. Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently advised, it is
hereby
ORDERED as follows:
-3-
1.
Plaintiff United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Kristen
R. Stacy, formerly known as Kristen R. Holley, [Record No. 16] is GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff United States, on behalf of its Department of Agriculture, Rural
Development (formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration and as the Rural Economic
and Community Development Service), is GRANTED an In Personam Judgment against
Defendant Kristen R. Stacy, formerly known as Kristen R. Holley, in the principal sum of
$93,584.17, plus interest at the contract rate in the amount of $7,259.22 as of May 19, 2011, plus
the interest credit subsidy granted in the amount of $8,284.80, plus amounts in escrow and other
pending fees and charges to the account as provided by the loan instruments and applicable law
in the amount of $2,206.13, for a total unpaid balance of $111,334.32, plus interest on the unpaid
balance at the rate of $16.3717 per day from May 19, 2011, until the date of entry of this
Judgment, together with interest on the Judgment amount (principal plus interest through the date
of Judgment plus the interest credit subsidy granted) at the legal rate of interest in effect as of
the date of this Judgment, computed daily and compounded annually until paid in full, and for
the costs of this action.
This 20th day of June, 2011.
-4-
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?