Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Lofland

Court of Appeal of Iowa

August 21, 2013

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OH1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-OH1, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JARED D. LOFLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.

Jared Lofland appeals from the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Bank of New York Mellon.

Jared Lofland, Ankeny, appellant pro se.

C. Anthony Crnic of Klatt, Odekirk, Augustine, Sayer, Treinen & Rastede, P.C., Waterloo, for appellee.

Considered by Eisenhauer, C.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.

POTTERFIELD, J.

Jared Lofland appeals from the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Bank of New York Mellon. We affirm.

I. Facts and proceedings.

Lofland received a loan for his home from Quicken Loans in the amount of $400, 000 in 2007. Quicken Loans secured this interest with a mortgage on the property. This loan was reassigned and ultimately bought by the Bank of New York Mellon.[1] Lofland failed to make payments as required under the loan and a petition for foreclosure was filed in November 2011. The Bank of New York Mellon filed a motion for summary judgment in April 2012. Lofland filed a resistance to the motion, a pretrial brief, and witness and exhibit list. A hearing was held on the motion for summary judgment on August 28, 2012. The court granted the motion, ruling:

The material facts are undisputed: Defendant Jared D. Lofland signed the promissory note for the purchase of the subject real estate and secured payments on the same via a mortgage; Defendant Lofland has breached the terms of the contract by failing to make the required payments and the Plaintiff has met all of the statutory prerequisites for seeking foreclosure on the mortgage. The Defendant in resistance to the motion challenges, among other things, the Plaintiff's ownership rights alleging thereon a defective assignment. However, as pointed out by Plaintiff's counsel, the assignment was done with the Defendant receiving notice at the time of the execution of the contract that an assignment [was made] and any assignment may be made. In any event, Defendant has not provided any competent evidence to show that Plaintiff is not the owner of the promissory note and mortgage. The breach of the mortgage contract documents having been shown, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to prevail on its Motion for Summary Judgment.

After the ruling, Lofland hired counsel and a motion to reconsider was filed. This motion was denied. Lofland appeals, arguing genuine issues of material fact exist and that the loan assignment was not valid, among several other claims.[2]

II. Analysis.

"Foreclosure proceedings are typically tried in equity. This appeal, however, is from an order granting summary judgment and related supplemental orders. Our review, therefore, is for correction of errors of law." Freedom Fin. Bank v. Estate of Boesen, 805 N.W.2d 802, 806 (Iowa 2011) (internal citations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact after a review of the entire record and when the moving party established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Pavone v. Kirke, 807 N.W.2d 828, 832 (Iowa 2011).

"In performing this review, we examine the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine if the moving ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.