Polanco v. HSBC Bank USA National Association et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying 70 Motion to Join Oscar Polanco as a Necessary and Indispensable Party. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 12/19/2019. (ctb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00466-GCM
CLAUDIA E. POLANCO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, PHH MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER COMES before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Join Oscar Polanco
as a Necessary and Indispensable Party (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 70). The Court, having carefully
considered the briefs and materials submitted in support of and in opposition to the Motion finds
and orders as follows:
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2007, Plaintiff’s husband, Oscar Polanco, obtained a $214,000.00 loan secured by a plot

of real property located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. (Doc. No. 60-1, at 1). In 2013,
Mr. Polanco executed a quitclaim deed of that property in favor of Plaintiff (Doc. No. 30, at 5),
and Plaintiff took control of the property and the loan account (Doc. No. 71-1, at 10, 11, 12, 13).
In that same year, the loan went into default. (Doc. No. 60-1, at 2). After defaulting, Plaintiff and
Defendants made changes to the loan, entering into a Loan Modification Agreement (“LMA”).
(Doc. No. 60-1, at 2); (Doc. No. 59, at 1). Defendants’ handling of the LMA is the basis of this
law suit.

1

II.

DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that joinder is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B) because,

otherwise, Defendants may be “subject to contradictory findings.” (Doc. No. 71, at 5). Rule
19(a)(1)(B) provides that a person must be joined as a required party in an action if the person
“claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the
action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability
to protect the interest; or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk
of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reasons of the claimed
interest.” (emphasis added).
As an initial matter, it appears that Defendants misunderstand Rule 19(a)(1)(B) to require
joinder if Mr. Polanco has an interest in the subject of this case, not if he claims one, as the plain
language of the rule makes clear. That misunderstanding is evident in their rule statement, which
omits the term claims and instead summarizes Rule 19(a)(1)(B) as providing “that a person shall
be joined as a party . . . if he has ‘an interest relating to the subject of the action . . . .” (Doc. No.
71, at 3) (emphasis added). It is also evident in their analysis, which relies on Mr. Polanco’s
affidavit where he alleges that Defendants’ mishandling of the mortgage harmed his relationship
with Plaintiff, harmed him financially, harmed him physically, and even harmed his children.
(Doc. No. 71) (citing Doc. No. 66-3, at 1, 2, 3). While Mr. Polanco’s affidavit makes clear that he
has various grievances with Defendants, he does not request to join this case and the affidavit does
not appear to be an attempt by Mr. Polanco to claim an interest in this case. To the contrary, Mr.
Polanco has repeatedly expressed an interest in avoiding any involvement with Defendants and the
mortgage at issue in this litigation, sending letters to Defendants that Plaintiff would take
possession of the property and handle all related bills and accounts and providing Plaintiff with

2

the quitclaim deed. (Doc. No. 71-1, at 10, 11, 12, 17, 23). Thus, this Court finds that Mr. Polanco
has not claimed an interest in this case, and joinder under Rule 19(a)(1)(B) is inappropriate. See
Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Harang, 262 F. Supp. 39, 45 (E.D. La. 1966) (denying a motion to join
a party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B) where that party had not claimed an interest in the action); Refundo,
LLC v. Drake Enters., Civil Action No. 13-643 (JLL), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57671, at *8 n.2
(D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2013) (denying a motion to join the IRS as a party where the “IRS ha[d] not
claimed an interest in [the] litigation”).
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 19, 2019

3