Patricia G. Guthrie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage NA
706 F. App'x 975
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia Guthrie (pro se) sued alleging wrongful foreclosure and related federal and state claims; the district court dismissed her complaint and later denied post-judgment motions.
- Guthrie appealed the denials of (1) a motion for a new trial and relief under Rule 60(b), and (2) motions to alter or modify the district court’s orders; portions of the appeal challenging the original March 31, 2015 dismissal were deemed untimely and partially dismissed.
- Guthrie argued the district court should have granted a new trial, that a filing was misconstrued as an appeal, that the judge should have recused, that defendants submitted a forged security deed, and that the court’s rulings contradicted the evidence.
- The district court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (3), and (6), and denied motions under Rules 52(b) and 60(a); Guthrie contended procedural errors (ex parte order, deprivation of trial/appeal) as well.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denials for abuse of discretion and affirmed: no trial occurred (so Rule 59 new-trial relief inapplicable), Guthrie failed to meet the standards for 60(b) relief or show grounds for recusal, and the court was not required to make additional findings when denying the post-judgment motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying a motion for a new trial | Guthrie contended dismissal was wrong and warranted a new trial | No trial occurred; new trial under Rule 59 requires an actual trial | Denial affirmed — Rule 59 relief unavailable because no trial occurred |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted (mistake, fraud, recusal) | Guthrie alleged a misconstrued filing, judge conflicts, and a forged security deed | District court argued Guthrie failed to show mistake, clear-and-convincing fraud, or disqualifying financial interest | Denial affirmed — no showing of Rule 60(b)(1), (3), or (6) grounds; recusal not required |
| Whether the court should alter or modify findings under Rules 52(b) / 60(a) | Guthrie claimed the denials were improper, ex parte, and deprived her of trial/appeal rights | Court noted Rules 52/60 do not require findings when denying Rule 59/60 motions; no ex parte violation shown | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; additional findings not required and no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummings v. Dep’t of Corr., 757 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of motion for new trial)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Nw. Nat. Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 60(b) orders)
- Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc., 205 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2000) (clear-and-convincing proof required for Rule 60(b)(3) fraud claims)
- Curves, LLC v. Spalding County, Ga., 685 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2012) (Rule 60(b) relief may be warranted for judge’s improper refusal to recuse)
- Delta Air Lines v. Sasser, 127 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 1997) (ordinary consumer transactions or routine account holdings do not require recusal)
- Trigo v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 847 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1988) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 52(b) motions)