844 N.W.2d 870
N.D.2014Background
- Frederick and Cynthia Skoda executed a mortgage in 2001 to secure a promissory note; JPMorgan Chase Bank acquired the mortgage via assignments culminating in 2012.
- The mortgage required payment of principal, interest, and escrow for taxes; Skoda paid PI but not escrow, arguing he would pay taxes separately.
- In 2011 JPMorgan Chase Bank refused to accept Skoda’s $542.89 payments for PI, excluding escrow.
- JPMorgan Chase Bank issued foreclosure notices in 2012 and filed suit; Skoda answered but did not respond to admissions requests.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact due to Skoda’s failure to respond to admissions and lack of competent opposing evidence.
- Skoda argues escrow rights and a FCRA claim create genuine issues of fact; the court ultimately rejects these arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Escrow entitlement under the mortgage terms | Skoda defaulted by not paying full escrow; bank could waive escrow only in writing | Escrow rights were waived by Homeside prior to assignment | No genuine issue; bank entitled to summary judgment |
| Effect of admissions responses on summary judgment | Admissions established the key facts supporting default | Skoda failed to respond; admissions thus admitted | Admissions deemed admitted; no genuine issue |
| Contract interpretation of escrow and default provisions | Note and mortgage require escrow; default when full amount not paid | Waiver or ambiguity could negate default | Clear contractual language supports default and foreclosure |
| Fair Credit Reporting Act claim | N/A (not explicitly argued) | No competent evidence that bank reported delinquency | No material issue; no FCRA violation proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Farm Credit Bank of Omaha v. McLaughlin, 474 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 1991) (withdrawal of deemed admissions may be allowed under Rule 36(b))
- Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Nevland, 1999 ND 51, 591 N.W.2d 109 (ND 1999) (opponent must present competent evidence creating a material dispute)
- Northwestern Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n of Fargo v. Biby, 418 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1988) (opponent must present competent evidence to withstand summary judgment)
- Bernabuucci v. Huber, 2006 ND 71, 712 N.W.2d 323 (ND 2006) (contract language governs interpretation if clear and explicit)
- Anderson v. Zimbelman, 2014 ND 34 (ND 2014) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)