Jackson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, N.A.
159 So. 3d 58
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- In 2005 the Jacksons refinanced and mortgaged their home; Wells Fargo (as servicer) and U.S. Bank (trustee) held/serviced the loan. Defaults began in 2007 and several forbearance negotiations followed.
- On May 23, 2008, Wells Fargo sent a proposed loan-modification packet requiring a $1,348.58 contribution by the Jacksons; the Jacksons signed the agreement but did not pay the contribution.
- On June 11, 2008, a debt-collection agent sent a certified letter stating intent to accelerate if the Jacksons did not cure by July 16, 2008; the Jacksons dispute receipt though the sender produced a signed return-receipt card.
- On July 21, 2008, the debt-collection agent sent a notice of acceleration; foreclosure sale occurred on August 15, 2008, and K-Quad bought the property.
- The Jacksons sued for negligent/wanton foreclosure and breach of contract; the Alabama Supreme Court previously held a genuine factual dispute existed about pre-acceleration notice and remanded; on remand the bank produced the June 11 letter and the trial court granted summary judgment for the bank.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bank gave required pre-acceleration notice under ¶22 of the mortgage | Jacksons: no valid notice of intent to accelerate was given (only acceleration letter was shown) | Bank: June 11 letter (sent by certified mail) provided proper notice of intent to accelerate | Court: June 11 letter satisfied mortgage notice requirement; no genuine issue of fact about sending |
| Whether prior appellate ruling (law-of-the-case) bars consideration of June 11 letter on remand | Jacksons: Supreme Court’s earlier finding that notice was lacking is law of the case, precluding reconsideration | Bank: Remand permitted consideration of additional facts; law-of-the-case inapplicable where new facts are presented | Court: Law-of-the-case did not bar presentation of new evidence on remand; trial court could consider the June 11 letter |
| Whether the May 23 loan-modification formed a binding contract that cured defaults | Jacksons: signed modification and bank communications created a binding modification, curing default | Bank: Modification was conditional on payment of the contribution; Jacksons never paid, so no binding modification | Court: Contribution was a condition precedent; failure to pay prevented formation of a binding modification |
| Whether summary judgment was proper after submission of June 11 letter | Jacksons: factual dispute over receipt and bank representative’s knowledge precludes summary judgment | Bank: Certified-mail return receipt and mortgage’s notice provisions make the sending dispositive; absence of receipt claim insufficient | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to Jacksons, no substantial evidence created a genuine dispute about notice; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 90 So.3d 168 (Ala. 2012) (prior appeal holding a genuine issue existed whether pre-acceleration notice was given)
- Bagley ex rel. Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc., 913 So.2d 441 (Ala. 2005) (describing scope and limits of the law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So.2d 1035 (Ala. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- J.K.L.B. Farms, LLC v. Phillips, 975 So.2d 1001 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (example of law-of-the-case and waiver where issues were finally decided and not preserved)
- Walker v. North American Sav. Bank, 142 So.3d 590 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (holding borrower’s denial of receipt insufficient to create genuine issue when certified-mail delivery shown)
- Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So.3d 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (similar principle regarding sufficiency of proof that lender sent required notices)