296 F.R.D. 9
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Haynes obtained a May 16, 2003, home mortgage from Navy Federal Credit Union, secured by a DC property.
- The Deed of Trust requires escrow payments for taxes and insurance, with a possible written waiver by NCFU.
- Haynes stopped escrow payments in Sept. 2010 and attempted to pay taxes/insurance directly; NCFU denied a waiver.
- NCFU treated the short escrow payments as not bringing the loan current and placed funds in a suspense account or returned them.
- Dec. 29, 2010 letter claimed a $2,319.57 escrow surplus, described as an annual analysis with projections for the next 12 months.
- Plaintiff sought various claims; discovery included Plaintiff’s admission request admitting a December 29, 2010 surplus, which NCFU later sought to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment of admissions is proper under Rule 36(b). | Haynes argues amendment would prejudice meritorious claims. | Haynes contends amendment clarifies the record and is warranted. | Amendment permitted; would promote merits. |
| Whether the amendment would prejudice Plaintiff’s ability to prove the case. | Amendment would require new proof and harm his case. | Prejudice minimal; evidence already in record and readily obtainable. | Prejudice not shown; amendment allowed. |
| Effect of the amendment on pending summary judgment motions. | Motions rely on the current admission. | Motions should wait until amended admissions are in place. | Both motions denied without prejudice; may be refiled after amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Potter, 212 F.R.D. 8 (D.D.C. 2002) (two-prong Rule 36(b) test for amendments)
- Rabil v. Swafford, 128 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1989) (prejudice analysis in amendment of admissions)
- McClanahan v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 144 F.R.D. 316 (W.D. Va. 1992) (prejudice and merits considerations under Rule 36(b))