978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-14-06 Part 2

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 11
subject Words 4278
subject Authors Roger LeRoy Miller

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Bank and BAC to initiate foreclosure; and, (3) Deutsche Bank defrauded Brock by attempting to foreclose on the
property. Brock sought: (a) a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from selling or foreclosing on the
page-pf2
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
no longer files SEC reports.”
At a hearing on 1 December 2010,FN11 a Circuit Court judge granted Petitioners' motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, finding that there was no material fact in dispute that would prohibit
the foreclosure from proceeding, and that the Defendants had established that they were the appropriate entity enti-
tled to proceed. The order dismissing the complaint was entered on 6 December 2010. Brock noted timely an appeal
to the Court of Special Appeals.
FN11. The Substitute Trustees filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on 18 November 2010,
contending that, as a matter of law, it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At the hear-
ing on December 1, the trial judge stated that he was not considering the Substitute Trustees' motion, but
rather limited his decision to the motion for summary judgment offered by Petitioners.
primarily Brock's contentions regarding the existence of the Trust and the ownership of the Note.FN13 Noting that
Petitioners bore the burden of establishing the Trust's continued existence in their second motion for summary
judgment, the court determined that a genuine dispute of material fact existed with respect to the continued existence
of the Trust. Specifically, because the Trust was a separate entity from IMPAC and the affidavit offered in support
of the Trust's continued existence was signed by an IMPAC employee, Morrison, the court determined that “the af-
Court judge at the summary judgment hearing.
FN13. The Court of Special Appeals determined that Brock's contention that Deutsche Bank lacked the au-
thority to appoint the Substitute Trustees was not preserved for appellate review because Brock conceded
before the trial court that it was BAC, and not Deutsche Bank, that possessed the Note and appointed the
Substitute Trustees. Without deciding the merits of the three remaining issues raised on appeal by Brock,
braguglio, 346 Md. 573, 598, 697 A.2d 885, 897 (1997); Ehrlich v. Bd. of Educ. of Balt. County, 257 Md. 542, 546,
263 A.2d 853, 855 (1970)). Thus, the intermediate appellate court looked solely to the Note and allonge to deter-
mine ownership. In examining the Note, the court observed that, although Petitioners argued that the Note belonged
to the Trust, the allonge did not reflect a transfer to the Trust. Thus, the court concluded that “the allonge demon-
strates that there was a dispute of fact as to the owner of the Note.”
page-pf3
page-pf4
page-pf5
page-pf6
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
no longer files SEC reports.”
At a hearing on 1 December 2010,FN11 a Circuit Court judge granted Petitioners' motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, finding that there was no material fact in dispute that would prohibit
the foreclosure from proceeding, and that the Defendants had established that they were the appropriate entity enti-
tled to proceed. The order dismissing the complaint was entered on 6 December 2010. Brock noted timely an appeal
to the Court of Special Appeals.
FN11. The Substitute Trustees filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on 18 November 2010,
contending that, as a matter of law, it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At the hear-
ing on December 1, the trial judge stated that he was not considering the Substitute Trustees' motion, but
rather limited his decision to the motion for summary judgment offered by Petitioners.
primarily Brock's contentions regarding the existence of the Trust and the ownership of the Note.FN13 Noting that
Petitioners bore the burden of establishing the Trust's continued existence in their second motion for summary
judgment, the court determined that a genuine dispute of material fact existed with respect to the continued existence
of the Trust. Specifically, because the Trust was a separate entity from IMPAC and the affidavit offered in support
of the Trust's continued existence was signed by an IMPAC employee, Morrison, the court determined that “the af-
Court judge at the summary judgment hearing.
FN13. The Court of Special Appeals determined that Brock's contention that Deutsche Bank lacked the au-
thority to appoint the Substitute Trustees was not preserved for appellate review because Brock conceded
before the trial court that it was BAC, and not Deutsche Bank, that possessed the Note and appointed the
Substitute Trustees. Without deciding the merits of the three remaining issues raised on appeal by Brock,
braguglio, 346 Md. 573, 598, 697 A.2d 885, 897 (1997); Ehrlich v. Bd. of Educ. of Balt. County, 257 Md. 542, 546,
263 A.2d 853, 855 (1970)). Thus, the intermediate appellate court looked solely to the Note and allonge to deter-
mine ownership. In examining the Note, the court observed that, although Petitioners argued that the Note belonged
to the Trust, the allonge did not reflect a transfer to the Trust. Thus, the court concluded that “the allonge demon-
strates that there was a dispute of fact as to the owner of the Note.”

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.