Case Information
_________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
M ICHAEL W. L UCAS , Plaintiff Appellant, v.
W ELLS F ARGO B ANK NA; E T ITLE I NSURANCE A GENCY ; J ARL G. K LUNGERVIK ; M. B ETH K LUNGERVIK ; AND F EDERAL H OME
L OAN M ORTGAGE C ORPORATION ,
Defendants Appellees.
Memorandum Decision No.
Filed May
Fifth District, St. George Department Honorable Thomas M. Higbee
No.
Michael W. Lucas, Appellant Pro Se
Lewis Reece J. David Westwood, Attorneys Appellees Jarl G. and M. Beth Klungervik
Amy F. Sorenson M. Lane Molen, Attorneys Appellees Bank, NA Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Richard Gunnerson, Attorney Appellee eTitle Insurance Agеncy J UDGE J. F REDERIC V OROS J R authored Memorandum Decision, J UDGES W ILLIAM A. T HORNE J R C AROLYN B. M C H UGH concurred.
VOROS, Judge:
¶1 Appellant Michael W. purchased home September shortly before United States real estate market collapsed. He alleged complaint lost job, his home suffered damage as result of having been built on expansive soil, and programs designed assist him instead assisted only lender, Bank, NA (the Bank). ¶2 defaulted mortgage. Bank foreclosed non ‐ judicially and sold Lucas’s home foreclosure sale Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). sued Freddie Mac, Bank, eTitle Insurance Agency, and Jarl G. Klungervik and M. Beth Klungervik trustees of Norseman Family Trust (the defendants), who had built home and sold Lucas. granted favor of Bank and Mac, and dismissed Lucas’s claims remaining defendants. appeals; we affirm. appears pro se. “[A] party who represents himself will
be held same standard of knowledge and practice any qualified member bаr. Nevertheless, because of lack technical knowledge law procedure, [a pro se litigant] should be accorded consideration may be indulged.” Winfield (citation omitted). Here, asserts that “Lucas’s appeal made up theories most part untethered Complaint, procedure сase was litigated below, actually properly decided district court.” While largely agree assessment, we will nevertheless individually address each еrror appeal. First, dismissing slander title claim. “The slander title claim,” argues, “is forgery Linda Green.” Citing CBS News television
Given often obscure presentation appeal, commend appellees’ treating those claims thoroughly supplying necessary procedural context.
Lucas Wells program, Lucas assеrts “Linda Green” “a woman rural Georgia whose signature was thousands mortgage documents a vice president more than banks—at same time.”
¶5 responds this сlaim was not preserved court. “[T]he preservation rule applies to claim, including constitutional questions, unless a defendant can demonstrate exceptional circumstances exist plain error occurred.” Holgate (citations omitted). Lucas does not respond Bank’s challenge, does nоt to have complied with preservation rule, does not invoke any exception it. For this reason alone, deny this appeal. But also note has not shown how alleged
forgery could have slandered title. documents signed by “Linda Green” merely substituted entity for another trustee (reflecting a merger Fаrgo) reconveyed a prior deed trust encumbering property. As a result, when purchased property he received title unencumbered trust deed securing seller’s loan. Second, setting aside default certificate obtained Freddie Mac. He argues shows “counsel claiming represent [Freddie Mac] ever authorized [Freddie Mac].” Moreover, “Freddie Mac,” he asserts, “is fictitious entity” “exists only through paper work.” An appellant cannоt carry burden appeal if brief does “contain contentions reasons appellant respect presented, . with citations authorities, statutes, parts record relied on.” Utah also discusses Form 1099A have received from Mac. does explain how Form 1099A relates any causes action.
Lucas v.
R. App. 24(a)(9). Here, Lucas provides no support the
dubious factual legal premises his argument—for example,
that an attorney must offer evidenсe that she authorized appear on behalf her client, or counsel acting Freddie
Mac offered none here.
[3]
Accordingly, has explаined controlling legal rules this question established trial
proceedings contravened them.
Third, contends erred in dismissing
his defendants ground res
judicata. adequately explains requirements res
judicata, but he makes no attempt apply this law facts his case. His brief contains “no specifics prior
litigation—such parties involved, litigated, and
whether final entered—necessary conduct an
adequate res judicata analysis at appeal.”
Berg v. Berg
,
In fact, Mac’s points us such record.
¶10 The trial court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for judgment the pleadings. At that hearing, Lucas’s trial counsel asserted that “[t]he auction aсtually never took place, as far as the steps.” The trial court cut off counsel’s argument, stating, “That really isn’t the issue today. . . . It’s not even in the paрers,” i.e., the pleadings. further noted that “[t]he complaint does not allege one word about the sale.” Lucas’s counsel did not disagree; seek lеave to amend the complaint, see Utah R. Civ. 15(a); ask the convert the motion into one summary judgment, see id. R. 12(c). Nor did she relate the trustee’s sale allegation any pleaded in complaint. At conclusion hearing, ruled “there is no allegation in the complaint, all, did anything other than follow statute as it outlined in Title оther related sections Utah code.” later added although Lucas’s counsel “tried bring a lot extraneous stuff,” ruling based pleadings alone. A week later, filed Lucas’s affidavit. “If, a motion judgment pleadings, matters
outside presented excluded court, motion shall be treated as one summary judgment disposed provided Rule . .” Id. R. 12(c). Lucas appeals from pleadings. Even if allegations affidavit were presented, they were excluded court. Thus, although does frаme challenge these terms, according him “every consideration may be indulged,” Winfield (citations omitted), construe appellate challenge сourt’s exclusion proffered no sale took place. ¶12 Lucas offers basis conclude so doing. His assertions—that power sale circumscribed by strict requirements, process must be observed when government action deprives person liberty property, government delegated powers—are beyond dispute. However, they do support trial court erroneously excluded matters outside the ruling motion judgment the pleadings.
¶13 Nor do we believе trial erred. “[I]t is well ‐ settled it within district court’s discretion whether accept extra ‐ pleading matter motion judgment pleadings and treat it one summary judgment reject it maintain character motion under Rule 12(c).” 5C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice Procedure: Civil § (3d ed. 2004) (discussing rule analogous rule 12(c) Utah Rules Civil Procedure). points record suggesting exceeded its discretion here, nor did we find any. On contrary, we conclude acted conducting hearing an orderly manner.
¶14 For foregoing reasons, is affirmed.
To extent have addressed other points or subpoints raised briefs, have determined they either foreclosed foregoing analysis lack merit. See Carter (Utah 1989) (“[T]his Court need not analyze address writing еach argument, issue, or raised properly before us appeal. Rather, a maxim appellate review nature extent an opinion rendered an appellate largely discretionary that court.”).