Brunk v. Conseco Bank, Inc. et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 29 PRO SE MOTION Emergency Motion Seeking Court Order For U.S. Bank to Produce The Original Note filed by Plaintiff Glenda Brunk. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "Emergency Motion Seeking Court Order for U.S. Bank to Produce the Original Note" (#29) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/19/18. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GLENDA BRUNK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CONSECO BANK INC. and U.S.
)
BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR
)
CONSECO FINANCE HOME EQUITY )
LOAN TRUST 2002-A,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:17-CV-188-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion Seeking Court
Order for U.S. Bank to Produce the Original Note” (#29). This Court previously
dismissed plaintiff’s wrongful acceleration claim (Count I) against U.S. Bank because
plaintiff’s claim was based upon copies, not originals, of the Note and allonges. (#27 at p.
6). However, it was explained that plaintiff “may examine the original Note and allonges
and refile.” (Id.). Since then, plaintiff has apparently been unable to meet with U.S.
Bank’s representatives in Chicago, Illinois, to review the original documents and
therefore demands “an order from this court directing U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee to
produce the original Note on [plaintiff’s home] in Ellington, MO, together with all
allonges, indorsements, or other related documents at the U.S. Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri at the Federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO[.]” (#29 at p. 1).
U.S. Bank opposes the motion (#31), arguing “there is no basis to force U.S. Bank to bear

this cost or [its attorney] to bear the burden of traveling several hours each way.” (#31 at
p. 3). U.S. Bank also points out the document must be “closely guarded” because the
original Note and allonges are bearer paper, and a holder of bearer paper may enforce it
just by possessing it. (#31 at p. 4). Finally, U.S. Bank notes it has proposed times for
which plaintiff could view the original Note and allonges in Chicago, but indicates it
received no response. (#31 at p. 2-3).
The Court agrees with U.S. Bank. Plaintiff, who did not file a reply brief, offers no
explanation as to why U.S. Bank should bear this cost. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will
be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion Seeking Court
Order for U.S. Bank to Produce the Original Note” (#29) is DENIED.
So ordered this19th day of September, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE