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.

AJR Peakview, Inc. v. First Bank of Nebraska

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 24, 2018

AJR PEAKVIEW, INC., JOHN DOE I, FOGE INVESTMENTS, LLC, JETZ SERVICE CO., INC., JOHN DOE II, RYAN BARRY, and JOHN SNELLER, Defendants-Appellants,
v.
FIRST BANK OF NEBRASKA, Plaintiff-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.

         The defendants appeal from the district court's entry of a foreclosure degree and judgment.

          Mark A. Critelli of Critelli Law Firm, P.C., Urbandale, for appellants.

          Thomas 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. [*]

          BLANE, SENIOR JUDGE.

         The 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).

         I. Prior Proceedings.

         In the 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.

         In 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."

         In 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 past-due discovery.

         Following 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.

         On 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 seriously hampered.

         A 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 ...


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.