HUMPHREY v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Et Al.
337 Ga. App. 331
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Humphrey borrowed $136,000 in 2005; Washington Mutual took a security deed on his Paulding County property. Washington Mutual later failed and Chase purchased its assets and serviced the loan; the security deed was assigned to Wells Fargo while Chase remained servicer.
- Humphrey previously sued related defendants in federal court twice (2012 and a later removal), voluntarily dismissing those suits in June 2013 and March 2014.
- On July 24, 2014, Martin & Brunavs (M&B), as counsel for Chase, sent a Notice of Acceleration and Foreclosure and published a Notice of Sale scheduling a September 2, 2014 foreclosure sale.
- Humphrey sued Chase and M&B days before the scheduled sale asserting wrongful foreclosure, interference with property rights, RICO, fraud, conversion, and breach of the security deed's notice/acceleration provisions.
- M&B moved for summary judgment, producing the July 24 notice, the published notice of sale, evidence it never completed a foreclosure sale, and that it had no contract with Humphrey. The trial court granted summary judgment to M&B and dismissed Humphrey’s claims against Chase on res judicata grounds. Humphrey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M&B is liable for wrongful foreclosure | Humphrey contended the July 24 notice was deficient and M&B wrongfully commenced foreclosure | M&B showed no foreclosure sale occurred and argued no duty/standing to foreclose | Summary judgment for M&B; wrongful foreclosure fails because no sale occurred and Humphrey did not raise wrongful attempted foreclosure below |
| Whether M&B breached contract | Humphrey asserted breach of security-deed terms | M&B argued it had no contract with Humphrey and complaint pled contract only against Chase | Summary judgment for M&B; no contractual relationship and breach claims were against Chase, not M&B |
| Whether Humphrey's claims against Chase are barred by res judicata | Humphrey argued the July 2014 notices/events occurred after his prior voluntary dismissals and could not have been litigated earlier | Chase argued prior voluntary federal dismissals bar re-litigation of these claims | Reversed dismissal as to Chase; res judicata does not apply because the July 2014 conduct post-dated prior suits and could not have been raised earlier |
| Whether appellee motion-to-dismiss materials warranted treating the dismissal as summary judgment for Chase | Humphrey opposed treating the pleadings as supporting summary adjudication | Chase asked appellate court to convert the dismissal into summary judgment based on evidence | Court declined; appellee did not move for summary judgment below and the appellate court will not grant summary judgment sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrow v. Angkawijana, LLC, 327 Ga. App. 1 (summary judgment review standard)
- Pfeiffer v. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827 (argument forfeiture; parties must stand on positions below)
- Winterchase Townhomes v. Koether, 193 Ga. App. 161 (nonparty to contract cannot be liable for breach)
- McKissick v. Aydelott, 307 Ga. App. 688 (res judicata prerequisites)
- Glen Oak v. Henderson, 258 Ga. 455 (judgment not res judicata as to liabilities arising after the judgment)
- Simmons v. Regions Bank, 255 Ga. App. 824 (post-judgment conduct not barred by earlier suit resolved before the conduct)
- Trop, Inc. v. City of Brookhaven, 296 Ga. 85 (when matters outside pleadings are considered, motion may be treated as for summary judgment)
- Post Realty Assoc. v. DSL Assoc., 228 Ga. App. 678 (appellate court will not grant relief where trial court issued no ruling to review)