Matthew Rogers v. Advance Bank
111 A.3d 25
| D.C. | 2015Background
- Rogers appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Advance Bank on breach of contract and/or judicial foreclosure/sale.
- Advance Bank alleged Rogers defaulted by submitting false income, employment, and education information in obtaining a residential loan and signed related documents at closing.
- The court granted partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim in January 2013 for $720,887, while denying it on fraud; additional amounts for interest, late fees, and escrow advances were disputed.
- Advance Bank later filed a third amended complaint seeking the additional $64,555.96 and moved for summary judgment on breach, judicial foreclosure, and/or judicial sale; mediation occurred but was unsuccessful.
- On November 18, 2013, the court granted summary judgment on breach and judicial sale under § 42-816, ordering the sale and assessing $96,198.78 in additional fees against Rogers.
- Rogers argues the court erred by not requiring mediation under § 42-815, but the court held § 42-815 mediation is not required for judicial sales under § 42-816, though court-ordered mediation occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mediation is required before a § 42-816 judicial sale. | Rogers: mediation under § 42-815.02 required and bypassed by § 42-816. | Advance Bank: § 42-815 mediation not applicable to judicial sales; § 42-816 governs judicial sales with court oversight. | Mediation not required for § 42-816 judicial sale. |
| Whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact on default and amount due. | Rogers default acknowledged by record and admissions; breach amount established. | Advance Bank contends no genuine fact disputes remain regarding default and amount due. | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether judicial sales under § 42-816 apply to residential mortgages and are permissible alongside mediation rules. | Rogers argues § 42-816 is inappropriate for residential mortgages. | Advance Bank argues § 42-816 is applicable; mediation requirements exist under § 42-815 but do not control judicial sales. | § 42-816 applies and provides court-ordered judicial sale with protections; mediation not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Hannan, 456 A.2d 807 (D.C. 1983) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Wyman v. Roesner, 439 A.2d 516 (D.C. 1981) (summary judgment standard)
- Huffines v. Am. Sec. and Trust Co., 71 F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1934) (distinction between judicial and non-judicial foreclosure)
- Leake v. Prensky, 798 F. Supp. 2d 254 (D.D.C. 2011) (non-judicial foreclosure jurisdiction)
- Pappas v. E. Sav. Bank, FSB, 911 A.2d 1230 (D.C. 2006) (foreclosure under power of sale; governmental action not required)
- Johnson v. Fairfax Vill. Condo. IV Unit Owners Ass’n, 641 A.2d 495 (D.C. 1994) (equitable considerations in foreclosure contexts)
- Dobyns v. United States, 30 A.3d 155 (D.C. 2011) (plain meaning approach to statutory interpretation)