Mayer v. Countrywide Home Loans
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15908
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mayer's homestead parcel (6.21 acres) sits on land that Mayer held in a revocable trust; two adjacent parcels (~55 acres) were part of the same farming operation.
- In 2006 Mayer refinanced; a mortgage of $156,000 was placed on the homestead parcel, and the loan servicing rights were later assigned to Countrywide.
- Mayer defaulted in 2007; Countrywide foreclosed and purchased the property at a sheriff's sale; Mayer filed suit six months after the redemption period.
- Mayer alleged a violation of Minnesota's Farmer-Lender Mediation Act (FLMA) for failure to mediate before foreclosure and alleged fraud related to the mortgage.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Countrywide, holding the homestead did not qualify for FLMA protection and that the fraud claim was untimely and failed on the merits.
- Mayer resides on the homestead parcel; the 2006 transaction allegedly moved the parcel into Mayer’s name, encumbered it with the mortgage, then restored it to the trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the encumbered parcel qualify as agricultural property under FLMA? | Mayer contends the property is a farm homestead and thus agricultural property. | Countrywide argues the parcel is used as a residence and not principally for farming. | No; homestead is not principally used for farming; FLMA not triggered. |
| Was the fraud claim pled with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b)? | Mayer alleged fraud in the opening paragraph and argued lender fraud related to trust arrangements. | Countrywide argues the complaint does not plead time, place, and content of misrepresentations with specificity. | Fraud claim insufficiently pled; summary judgment for Countrywide on fraud appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 582 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standards; de novo review of facts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (genuine dispute requires sufficient evidence for jury to resolve)
- Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) requires time, place, contents, and identity of misrepresentation)
- Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints require sufficient factual allegations)
- Hall v. Gus Constr. Co., 842 F.2d 1010 (8th Cir. 1988) (issues not presented to trial court generally not considered on appeal)