Gustavia Home, LLC v. Rutty

Case Type:
Consumer
Case Status:
Reversed and Remanded
Citation:
17-345 (2nd Circuit, Dec 21,2017) Not Published
Tag(s):
Ruling:
In a summary order, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s February 1, 2017 judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. The Second Circuit held that summary judgment for the plaintiff-appellee was inappropriate because it was unclear from the evidence whether the plaintiff had standing to pursue the foreclosure action on the subject property.
Procedural context:
In a diversity action for the foreclosure and sale of the defendant-appellant’s property, the district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff-appellee in a January 24, 2017 memorandum and order. Subsequently, the district court ordered the foreclosure and sale of the defendant’s property in the court’s February 1, 2017 judgment. The defendant appealed, and the 2nd Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded.
Facts:
Prior to this action, in 2006, defendant-appellant Rutty executed a note and mortgage on his property with the original lender in the amount of $134,000. Thereafter, in 2007, the original lender filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and eventually dissolved. Through a series of undated allonges, the note was purportedly transferred to plaintiff-appellee Gustavia Home LLC. The defendant defaulted, and the plaintiff filed a diversity action with the district court seeking summary judgment to foreclose on the property. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, and ordered the foreclosure and sale of defendant’s property in the court’s February 1, 2017 judgment. The defendant, pro-se, appealed, arguing, among other things, that in light of the original lender’s bankruptcy and undated allonges, the district court erred when it found that the plaintiff had standing to pursue the foreclosure action. Ultimately, the Second Circuit (i) vacated the district court’s February 1, 2017 judgment; (ii) remanded for further proceedings; (iii) denied the defendant-appellant’s request to direct the district court to enter judgment in his favor on remand; and (iv) affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant-appellant’s motion to strike an affidavit by the plaintiff.
Judge(s):
The Honorable Guido Calabresi; The Honorable Richard C. Wesley; and The Honorable Denny Chin

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3061 in the system

2954 Summarized

0 Being Processed