Wortman et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al
Filing
26
ORDER denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment and to Expunge Lis Pendens. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/11/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
MICHAEL C. WORTMAN et al.,
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
14
This is a standard foreclosure case involving one property. Defendants have moved for
9
Plaintiffs,
10
vs.
11
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,
12
Defendants.
3:12-cv-00045-RCJ-VPC
ORDER
15
summary judgment and to expunge the lis pendens. For the reasons given herein, the Court
16
denies the motion.
17
I.
18
THE PROPERTY
On August 14, 2003, Plaintiffs Michael C. and Emberlee Wortman purchased real
19
property located at 564 Sonora Pass Ct., Sparks, NV 89436 (the “Property”), giving a $217,800
20
promissory note to lender Platinum First Mortgage, LP (“PFM”) secured by a deed of trust
21
(“DOT”) against the Property to be administered by trustee Stewart Title of Northern Nevada.
22
(See DOT 1–3, Aug. 14, 2003, ECF No. 9-2). On April 16, 2004, Plaintiffs arranged a home
23
equity line of credit (“HELOC”) with lender Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) in a
24
maximum amount of $42,600, secured by a DOT against the Property to be administered by
25
trustee American Securities Co. of Nevada (“ASCN”). (See First HELOC DOT 1–2, Apr. 16,
1
2
2004, ECF No. 9-3).
On December 10, 2004, Plaintiffs refinanced the Property with lender Countrywide Home
3
Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) for $296,000, giving Countrywide a DOT to be administered by
4
trustee CTC Real Estate Services (“CTC”). (See Refinance DOT 1–4, Dec. 10, 2004, ECF No. 9-
5
4). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was appointed as the lender’s
6
“nominee.” (See id. 2–3). On November 6, 2006, Plaintiffs arranged a second HELOC with
7
lender Clearstar Financial Credit Union (“Clearstar”) in a maximum amount of $49,383, secured
8
by a DOT against the Property to be administered by trustee Stewart Title Co. (See Second
9
HELOC DOT 1–2, Nov. 6, 2006, ECF No. 9-5).
10
First American Title Insurance Co., as agent for Recontrust Co., N.A. (“Recontrust”) filed
11
a notice of default (“NOD”) against the Property based on a default on the Refinance DOT of
12
unspecified amount. (See First NOD 1–2, Jan. 28, 2010, ECF No. 9-7). MERS then transferred
13
the note and Refinance DOT to the Bank of New York Mellon (“Mellon”), as trustee for a
14
mortgage-backed security. (See Assignment, Jan. 29, 2010, ECF No. 9-6).1 On the same date,
15
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”), formerly known as Countrywide, as purported
16
attorney in fact for Mellon, substituted Recontrust as trustee on the Refinance DOT.
17
(See Substitution, Jan. 29, 2010, ECF No. 9-8). Recontrust then rescinded the First NOD, (see
18
Rescission, May 20, 2010, ECF No. 9-9), and filed a new NOD against the Property based on a
19
default on the Refinance DOT of unspecified amount, (see Second NOD 1–2, Apr. 27, 2011,
20
ECF No. 9-10). The parties participated in the state Foreclosure Mediation Program (“FMP”)
21
but failed to resolve the default. (See FMP Certificate, June 9, 2011, ECF No. 9-11). Recontrust
22
23
24
25
1
This simultaneous transfer of the interest in the note to Mellon by MERS in its capacity
as “nominee” and of MERS’ own interest in the Refinance DOT in its capacity as “beneficiary”
cured any split created at the inception of the mortgage between Countrywide’s and MERS’
respective interests in the note and Refinance DOT. See generally Edelstein v. Bank of New York
Mellon, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 48 (2012).
Page 2 of 6
1
noticed trustee’s sales (“NOS”) for October 31, 2011 and April 5, 2012. (See First NOS, Oct. 7,
2
2011, ECF No. 9-12; Second NOS, Mar. 13, 2012, ECF No. 9-13).
3
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in state court on October 31, 2011, listing eight causes of
4
action: (1) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations; (2) Violations of the Nevada Deceptive
5
Trade Practices Act; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4)
6
Violations of Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 107.080; (5) Quiet Title; (6) Fraud; (7) Slander
7
of Title; and (8) Abuse of Process. Defendants removed and moved to dismiss and to expunge
8
the lis pendens. The Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all claims except
9
those for violations of NRS 107.080 and quiet title. Defendants have now moved for summary
10
judgment and to expunge the lis pendens.
11
II.
12
LEGAL STANDARDS
A court must grant summary judgment when “the movant shows that there is no genuine
13
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
14
Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v.
15
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there
16
is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. A
17
principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported
18
claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). In determining summary
19
judgment, a court uses a burden-shifting scheme:
20
22
When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at
trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict
if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the
initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue
material to its case.
23
C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations
24
and internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden
25
of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by
21
Page 3 of 6
1
presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by
2
demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an
3
element essential to that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See
4
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary
5
judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See
6
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159–60 (1970).
7
If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to
8
establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
9
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party
10
need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
11
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing
12
versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d
13
626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment
14
by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by facts. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
15
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and
16
allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that
17
shows a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
18
At the summary judgment stage, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and
19
determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477
20
U.S. at 249. The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are
21
to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely
22
colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249–50.
23
III.
24
25
ANALYSIS
At the dismissal stage, the Court noted that the foreclosure may have been statutorily
improper. The problem lied in the Substitution, wherein BAC (formerly Countrywide), as
Page 4 of 6
1
purported attorney in fact for Mellon, substituted Recontrust as trustee on the Refinance DOT. It
2
was not factually clear that BAC was Mellon’s agent. BAC’s own claim of agency on the
3
Substitution was not sufficient. The Court therefore denied the motion to dismiss as against the
4
Chapter 107 and quiet title claims.
5
Defendants have now moved for summary judgment against those two claims. They
6
introduce two exhibits in support. Exhibit B is another copy of the Substitution, which the Court
7
has already noted is itself no evidence of BAC’s agency on behalf of Mellon. Exhibit A is the
8
declaration of a person whose name is unclear. (See Decl., Nov. 16, 2012, ECF No. 23-1, at 2).
9
The declarant’s name appears in two places on the declaration: the signature and the preamble at
10
the top of the second page, where the name is hand-written on a blank line. The given name
11
appears to be “Antoinette L.” The surname appears to be “Overfeld,” “Overfold,” “Overfield,”
12
or “Overfielsl.” Though unlikely, the first four letters of the surname could also reasonably be
13
read as “Quer.” In any case, the name of the declarant is not entirely clear, and it is nowhere
14
typed on the declaration. The declarant attests to be an “Assistant Vice President” for Bank of
15
America, N.A. (See id. ¶ 2). She attests that Vice President of Mellon Diane Picket and
16
Managing Director of Mellon Mauro Palladino executed a power of attorney (the “POA”) (which
17
is attached) appointing BAC as Mellon’s attorney-in-fact for, inter alia, appointing substitute
18
trustees. (See id. ¶ 5). The attached POA is signed by those persons, and it is notarized as having
19
been signed on May 6, 2009, which is prior to the Substitution. (See POA, May 6, 2009, ECF No.
20
23-1, at 6). The POA gives BAC the power to substitute trustees as to deeds of trust that are part
21
of “certain Pooling and Servicing Agreements,” but those agreements are not further defined.
22
(See id.). It is impossible to tell from this evidence whether Plaintiffs’ mortgage falls within the
23
“certain Pooling and Servicing Agreements” for which Mellon appears to have appointed BAC
24
as its attorney-in-fact for the purposes of trustee substitution. If the POA granted the powers as
25
to “all” or “any” mortgages, it would be enough, but the POA specifies only “Mortgage[s] in
Page 5 of 6
1
connection with the transactions contemplated in those certain Pooling and Servicing
2
Agreements.” (Id.). This limitation built directly into the POA coupled with the lack of evidence
3
concerning whether Plaintiffs’ own mortgage falls within or without the limitation, leaves a
4
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Defendants have failed to carry their initial burden on
5
summary judgment.
6
7
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment and to Expunge Lis
8
Pendens (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated this 11th day of March, 2013.
Dated this 28th day of November, 2012.
11
12
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6 of 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?