JOHNSON v. METLIFE BANK, N.A.

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT METLIFE BANK'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF (#71) IS GRANTED. THE CLERK SHALL ENTER THE BRIEF ATTACHED TO SAID MOTION ON THE DOCKET. BANK OF AMERICA AND REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTION'S AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAV E TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF (#70) IS GRANTED. THE CLERK SHALL ENTER THE BRIEF ATTACHED TO SAID MOTION ON THE DOCKET. METLIFE BANK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#64) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO COUNTS II AND II I, AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND IN FAVOR OF METLIFE ON THOSE COUNTS ONLY. THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO COUNT I. BANK OF AMERICA AND REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#65) IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND IN FAVOR OF BANK OF AMERICA AND REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS ON COUNTS II AND III. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 8/7/12. 8/7/12 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[FDC]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHANIEL JOHNSON, Individually and as
Heir to the Estate of Josie Johnson, Deceased
v.
METLIFE BANK, N.A., Successor to BNY
Mortgage Company, LLC, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-800

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant MetLife Bank’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, and Defendants Bank of America and Reverse Mortgage Solutions’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, and all documents filed in connection therewith, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

MetLife Bank’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (Docket No. 71) is GRANTED. The
Clerk shall enter the brief attached to said Motion on the docket.

2.

Bank of America and Reverse Mortgage Solution’s Amended Motion for Leave to File a
Reply Brief (Docket No. 70) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter the brief attached to said
Motion on the docket.

3.

MetLife Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 64) is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is granted as to Counts II and III, and JUDGMENT
IS ENTERED against Plaintiff and in favor of MetLife on those counts only. The Motion
is denied as to Count I.

4.

Bank of America and Reverse Mortgage Solutions’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket
No. 65) is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED against Plaintiff and in favor of Bank
of America and Reverse Mortgage Solutions on Counts II and III.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ John R. Padova
John R. Padova, J.