Blocker v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 396
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Derik and Tammi Blocker executed a 2007 promissory note and mortgage with Accredited Home Lenders; MERS assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank (two recorded assignments appear in the record).
- The Blockers defaulted beginning June 2011; U.S. Bank initiated foreclosure on December 30, 2011 and filed for summary judgment July 24, 2012.
- The Blockers, proceeding pro se, claim they tendered payment via their attorney-in-fact Marcus Lenton Jr., who presented nonstandard instruments (personal check marked "NOT FOR DEPOSIT," an "International Promissory Note," UCC financing statement, and Treasury-directed "Lawful Order for Money"). U.S. Bank refused these as uncertified/invalid payment.
- The Blockers also alleged the mortgage assignment to U.S. Bank might be fraudulent (pointing to two assignments) and argued procedural due process and subject-matter jurisdiction defects based on discovery nonresponses and other claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure to U.S. Bank; the Blockers appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue of material fact exists to preclude foreclosure | Blockers: they tendered valid payment through Lenton (various unconventional instruments) which would discharge debt | U.S. Bank: Blockers defaulted; offered instruments were not valid certified payment and did not discharge debt | No genuine issue; summary judgment and foreclosure affirmed |
| Validity of mortgage assignments to U.S. Bank | Blockers: two assignments suggest possible fraud | U.S. Bank: assignment(s) establish its authority to foreclose; either assignment suffices | Two assignments do not create reasonable inference of fraud; U.S. Bank was proper party to foreclose |
| Procedural due process from failure to respond to discovery before summary judgment | Blockers: failure to answer interrogatories/produce documents violated due process | U.S. Bank: no due process violation; Blockers did not use Rule 37 or seek continuance and allowed less than 30 days for response | No due process violation; Blockers failed to follow discovery/continuance procedures |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction of trial court to enter foreclosure decree | Blockers: trial court lacked jurisdiction | U.S. Bank: court of general jurisdiction (Lake Superior Court) has power to decide foreclosure | Court had subject-matter jurisdiction; jurisdictional challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012) (summary judgment standard and resolving doubts for nonmovant)
- McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Conn. 2010) (describing "Redemptionist" theories as meritless)
- Stevenson v. Bank of America, 359 S.W.3d 466 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011) (explaining ‘‘secret account/vapor money’’ theories and their rejection)
- City of Evansville v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 965 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (speculation/conjecture insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact)