United States of America v. Successors of Rhonda W Cathey The et al

Filing 28

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 23 ) is GRANTED as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 08/28/2024. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
THE SUCCESSORS OF RHONDA
W. CATHEY, aka RHONDA
WYNONA CATHEY-WOOD
(Deceased) et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-23-630-G

ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Default
Judgment (Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff seeks entry of a default and foreclosure judgment against
Defendants Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim
Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that a default
and foreclosure judgment should be entered.
I.

Background

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 20, 2023. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). As relevant
here, Plaintiff seeks an in rem judgment against the Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka
Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood in the sum of
$152,506.92 as of July 7, 2023, together with accruing interest at the rate of $7.79 per diem
from July 7, 2023, to the date of judgment; foreclosure of its mortgage lien; determination
of its first lien priority; and sale of the mortgaged premises pursuant to judgment. See id.
at 3. Defendants Tim Wood, Jr. and Jessica Wood were timely served. See Doc. No. 19.

Defendant Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood was
served by publication pursuant to this Court’s Order and was directed to appear within 80
days of the date of the Court’s Order. See Doc. No. 18. Defendants Successors of Rhonda
W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood have
failed to answer or otherwise defend themselves in this lawsuit, and the Clerk has entered
default against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). See Clerk’s Entry
of Default (Doc. No. 25). Plaintiff now seeks entry of a default judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) against Defendants Successors of Rhonda W.
Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood. See Pl.’s
Mot. Default J. (Doc. No. 23) at 2-4.
II.

Discussion
A.

Procedural Requirements for Entry of Default Judgment

The record reflects that Defendants have failed to answer or plead, that default was
entered by the Clerk, and that Plaintiff’s Motion complies with Local Civil Rule 55.1. See
Clerk’s Entry of Default; Doc. No. 22, at 2; Pl.’s Mot. Default J. at 2.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural requirements for entry of a default judgment. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 55(b); LCvR 55.1; see also Tabb v. Mentor Prot. Serv. LLC, No. CIV-17-1130D, 2018 WL 3213622, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2018).
B.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

The entry of a default judgment “is committed to the sound discretion of the district
court.” Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016). “Default judgments are
generally disfavored in light of the policy that cases should be tried upon their merits
2

whenever reasonably possible. Nonetheless, default judgment is viewed as a reasonable
remedy when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive
party.” Tabb, 2018 WL 3213622, at *1 (citing In re Rains, 946 F.2d 731, 732 (10th Cir.
1991)).
Because a default has been entered, Plaintiff is “relieved . . . from having to prove
the complaint’s factual allegations.” Tripodi, 810 F.3d at 765; see also United States v.
Craighead, 176 F. App’x 922, 924 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The defendant, by his default, admits
the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment,
and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Even after default, however, “it remains for the court to consider whether
the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate basis for the entry of a judgment since a party
in default does not admit conclusions of law.” Mathiason v. Aquinas Home Health Care,
Inc., 187 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1274 (D. Kan. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Complaint and attached exhibits represent that Rhonda W. Cathey defaulted on
a promissory note, including a First Modification of Note, and mortgage on the mortgaged
premises,1 and that the note and mortgage were held by Plaintiff. See Compl. ¶ 2; id. Exs.

1

The legal description of the mortgaged premises is as follows:
THE WEST TWO HUNDRED EIGHT-FOUR (284) FEET OF BLOCK
THREE (3) IN MCCANN DAVIS & MCCANN SOUTH BROADWAY
ADDITION TO OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA COUNTY,
OKLAHOMA, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
Property address of 8244 South Harvey Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73139.

Compl. ¶ 4.
3

1-3 (Doc. Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Consequently, Plaintiff states that it is entitled to judgment
for the amount due on the note, which is:
Principal............................................................$142,284.58
Interest as of July 7, 2023....................................$10,222.34
Amount due as of July 7, 2023......................... $152,506.92
plus accruing interest on the principal at the rate of 1.875% per diem from
July 7, 2023, to the date of judgment.
Compl. ¶ 2; id. Exs. 4, 5 (Doc. Nos. 1-4, 1-5). Plaintiff also represents that it is “entitled
to foreclosure of its first mortgage lien and sale of the mortgaged premises in partial
satisfaction of the note and debt owing.” Compl. ¶ 3.
The Complaint and an attached obituary reflect that Rhonda W. Cathey died on July
18, 2019. Compl. ¶ 5; id. Ex. 6 (Doc. No. 1-6). Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Successors of
Rhonda W. Cathey, (Deceased), Tim Wood, Jr., as spouse of the Defendant, Rhonda W.
Cathey, and Jessica Wood, alleged daughter, may claim some right, title or interest in the
mortgaged premises, but such interests are inferior and subordinate to the prior mortgage
lien of [P]laintiff.” Compl. ¶ 6. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual
allegations and the exhibits attached to the Complaint establish the following:
1) Plaintiff held a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the mortgaged
premises;
2) Rhonda W. Cathey was the debtor on the note;
3) Ms. Cathey defaulted on the note;
4) Ms. Cathey is now deceased;
5) Plaintiff is now entitled to judgment for the amount due on the note plus
interest;
4

6) Plaintiff’s mortgage is a valid first mortgage lien on the mortgaged
premises; and
7) Plaintiff is entitled to foreclosure of its first mortgage lien and sale of the
mortgaged premises in partial satisfaction of the note and debt owing.
C.

Relief Requested

Plaintiff now requests that the Court enter a default and foreclosure judgment in this
action declaring that: (1) Plaintiff’s note and mortgage are in default and the mortgaged
premises should be foreclosed; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to the amount due and owing on the
promissory note and mortgage plus accruing interest on the principal at the rate of 1.875%
per diem from July 7, 2023, to the date of judgment; (3) Plaintiff has a valid first lien on
the subject real property; and (4) a special execution and order of sale shall issue directing
the United States Marshal to levy upon, advertise, and sell the real property described
above with appraisement, free of any right, title, or interest of all defendants, except any
unpaid general and special taxes and special assessments in Oklahoma County, the mowing
liens filed by the City of Oklahoma City, and/or special assessments given priority by law.
Because Defendants the Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona CatheyWood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood have failed to respond to or defend this action in

5

any way, the Court finds that entry of a default judgment against these Defendants
awarding the requested relief is appropriate.2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED
as set forth herein. A separate default and foreclosure judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2024.

2

The Motion states that the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County Treasurer and Board
of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, have agreed to the entry of judgment. See
Pl.’s Mot. Default J. at 2. The State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission,
filed a disclaimer stating that it disclaims having a lien for estate taxes upon the mortgaged
premises. See Disclaimer (Doc. No. 14).
6