AJR PEAKVIEW, INC., JOHN DOE I, FOGE INVESTMENTS, LLC, JETZ SERVICE CO., INC., JOHN DOE II, RYAN BARRY, and JOHN SNELLER, Defendants-Appellants,
FIRST BANK OF NEBRASKA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.
defendants appeal from the district court's entry of a
foreclosure degree and judgment.
A. Critelli of Critelli Law Firm, P.C., Urbandale, for
O. Ashby and Nicholas A. Buda of Baird Holm L.L.P., Omaha,
Nebraska, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Blane, S.J.
defendants in a foreclosure action, AJR Peakview, Inc; John
Doe I, FoGe Investments, L.L.C., Jetz Service Co., Inc.; John
Doe II; Ryan Barry; and John Sneller (collectively, the
defendants), appeal from the district court's entry of a
foreclosure decree and judgment for the plaintiff, First Bank
of Nebraska (the bank).
simplest terms, this case involves the bank's effort to
foreclose a mortgage on a commercial apartment building, in
which the defendant entities and individuals claim an
ownership or lien interest. The bank filed the foreclosure
action against the defendants in April 2015, and the
defendants responded with several affirmative defenses and a
counterclaim that the bank had engaged in misrepresentation
of the contractual terms.
September, in response to a motion from the bank and after a
hearing on the matter, the court appointed a receiver over
the mortgaged property. Additionally, the court noted,
"Conducts towards [the bank] by [the defendants] has
harmed [the bank] and significantly added to [the bank's]
legal fees herein and burdened the mortgaged property."
December, the bank filed a motion to compel production of
documents and answers to interrogatories and for sanctions
due to a number of failures by the defendants in producing
documents, cooperating with the scheduling of depositions,
attending depositions that had been scheduled, and responding
to interrogatories. The bank also provided a detailed list of
the efforts it had made to obtain or complete the items
without the court's assistance. In addition, the bank
asked the court to order the defendants to pay certain legal
fees-those that had been incurred attempting to receive
a hearing, the court issued a written ruling on February 22,
2016 in which it ordered the defendants to pay $3400 of the
bank's legal fees and prohibited the defendants from
introducing at trial any documents they failed to produce by
March 1. The court listed a number of documents the
defendants had yet to produce and ordered them to do so
within five days.
March 8, the bank filed a motion asking the court to file the
foreclosure decree in favor of the bank as a sanction for the
defendants' failure to respond to discovery requests, as
they had been ordered to do. The bank indicated its ability
to prepare for the trial-then scheduled for April 1-had been
hearing on the motion for sanction was heard in May. In July,
the court filed a foreclosure decree and judgment in favor of
the bank. The court determined the bank was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law when it considered the deemed
admissions that had been ordered as part of the February 22
order and the undisputed evidence provided by the bank.
Alternatively, the court concluded the entry of the
foreclosure decree and ...