Williams v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc.
3:11-cv-00613
S.D. Miss.Nov 8, 2013Background
- Williams owned a six-acre tract; her parents obtained a Vanderbilt loan secured by a deed of trust that (mistakenly) encumbered part of her land. First American issued title insurance on that deed. Neither defendant discovered the encumbrance on Williams’s parcel.
- In Sept. 2008 Williams sought a single loan from Freedom Homes to buy a mobile home and pay off a defaulted Tower Loan; Freedom Homes allegedly told her Vanderbilt’s deed appeared on title and that the loan could not proceed until it was cleared.
- Tower Loan recorded a notice of foreclosure Sept. 24, 2008; Williams’s property was sold at foreclosure Oct. 27, 2008.
- Williams sued Vanderbilt and First American for negligence and gross negligence, claiming defendants’ negligent placement of the lien caused her inability to refinance and resulting foreclosure; she sought $1,000,000 in damages.
- At summary judgment, Williams relied on her testimony and a post-deposition affidavit recounting an unnamed Freedom Homes employee (“Jenae”) telling her the Vanderbilt lien blocked the loan. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Williams cannot show causation and that the Freedom Homes statements are inadmissible hearsay.
- The court granted defendants’ summary-judgment motions and denied Williams’s partial summary judgment because Williams failed to present admissible evidence proving causation; the Freedom Homes statement was hearsay and did not fall within any exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants' negligence proximately caused Williams’s foreclosure (causation) | But for the Vanderbilt deed appearing on title, Freedom Homes would have funded a loan that would have paid Tower Loan and prevented foreclosure | Williams cannot prove causation because the only evidence tying Freedom Homes’ refusal to the Vanderbilt deed is inadmissible hearsay | Held for defendants: Williams failed to raise admissible evidence of causation; summary judgment granted to defendants |
| Admissibility of Williams’s testimony about Freedom Homes employee (hearsay) | Williams argues the employee’s statement is admissible under present-sense impression, statement against interest, or residual exception | Defendants argue the statement is hearsay and inadmissible at summary judgment absent an applicable exception; hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment | Held: statement is inadmissible hearsay; none of the asserted exceptions (Rule 803(1), Rule 804(b)(3), Rule 807) apply |
| Whether Williams satisfied Rule 803(1) (present-sense impression) | The statement was made "immediately" after the employee learned of the lien and thus is contemporaneous and trustworthy | Defendants contend Williams offers only a self-serving affidavit years later and cannot verify the required strict contemporaneousness | Held: Rule 803(1) not met — affidavit insufficient and time lapse/verification inadequate |
| Whether Williams satisfied Rule 804(b)(3) or Rule 807 (residual exception) | The statement was against the declarant’s pecuniary interest and/or is sufficiently trustworthy to qualify for the residual exception | Defendants argue the declarant is not shown to be unavailable, not identified, and the content is not demonstrably against her interest; reliability not established | Held: Rule 804(b)(3) and Rule 807 inapplicable — declarant availability, interest, and trustworthiness not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment proper where nonmoving party fails to establish an essential element)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (court may not weigh credibility disputes at summary judgment)
- Entrican v. Ming, 962 So. 2d 28 (Miss.) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, injury)
- Huynh v. Phillips, 95 So. 3d 1259 (Miss. 2012) (causation requires cause in fact and legal cause/foreseeability)
- United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367 (5th Cir.) (statement-against-interest must be clearly damaging to declarant)
- United States v. Polidore, 690 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing present-sense impression admissibility)