Akers v. Beal Bank
845 F. Supp. 2d 238
D.D.C.2012Background
- Akers owned a DC residential property secured by a Deed of Trust with escrow for taxes and insurance, serviced by Beal Bank and Countrywide (now BAC Home Loans).
- In 2003 Countrywide directed future notices to be mailed to Countrywide; the escrow agreement contemplated payment of taxes and insurance from escrow and payment of taxes by the servicer.
- In April 2009 Akers filed a breach-of-contract action against Beal Bank and Countrywide alleging they failed to timely pay DC tax bills, misapplied payments to escrow, charged excessive late fees, and failed to provide timely tax notices.
- Defendants mov ed for summary judgment, asserting the Deed of Trust authorized receipt of tax assessments and regular payment of taxes from escrow with notices provided to Akers.
- The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and that Akers failed to show evidence to support a breach of the Deed of Trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants breached the Deed of Trust by tax payments and notices | Akers contends tax notices were not properly provided and taxes were not timely paid. | Beal Bank/Countrywide argue the Deed authorized receipt of tax assessments and timely payment from escrow with notices to Akers. | No breach shown; judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Parra declaration and attached documents were properly admissible | Parra lacked personal knowledge; exhibits were unauthenticated. | Declaration based on business records; documents are admissible as business records; authentication not required under Rule 56. | Declaration and attached documents properly considered; admissible. |
| Whether Akers provided admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute | Akers provided documents but failed to show breach with admissible evidence. | No admissible evidence from Akers controverts defendants’ evidence. | No genuine dispute; defendant entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute requirement; evidence standards)
- Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009) (elements of breach of contract; damages required)
- Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (affidavits; evidence admissibility; summary judgment)
- Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (summary judgment evidence standard; affidavits)