Katrenia Thompson v. Wachovia Bank, National Association
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 12/4/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080578 K a t r e n i a Thompson v. Wachovia Bank, N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-07-902090) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Katrenia below, Thompson appeals Wachovia Bank, ("Katrenia"), from a p a r t i a l National p l a i n t i f f b e l o w . We r e v e r s e one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s summary j u d g m e n t Association a n d remand. i n favor of ("Wachovia"), the 2080578 On October siblings, 1, Terrell C i r c u i t Court, 2007, Wachovia sued Katrenia J o n e s a n d Wanda M i t c h e l l , stating a claim and h e r i n the Jefferson o f e j e c t m e n t . As t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s o f i t s c l a i m , W a c h o v i a a l l e g e d t h a t i t h a d f o r e c l o s e d on a mortgage Birmingham property on a home located a t 2600 1 5 t h S t r e e t ("the p r o p e r t y " ) ; at the foreclosure that West i n i t had purchased the s a l e ; that i t had subsequently demanded t h a t t h e m o r t g a g o r s , K a t r e n i a , Jones, and M i t c h e l l , surrender possession Katrenia, Jones, and M i t c h e l l had n o t s u r r e n d e r e d of the property possession. property; had As of the property possession w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r W a c h o v i a ' s demand f o r relief, a determination forfeited w i t h i n 10 d a y s ; a n d t h a t their Wachovia sought that Katrenia, statutory a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o surrender possession of the Jones, and M i t c h e l l r i g h t o f redemption by possession of theproperty their within 10 d a y s a f t e r W a c h o v i a h a d made i t s demand; a n d damages f o r the alleged wrongful detention Jones, and M i t c h e l l after of the property the foreclosure by K a t r e n i a , sale. Wachovia s u b s e q u e n t l y amended i t s c o m p l a i n t t o a d d C a r y Thompson a s an a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t a n d t o a l l e g e t h a t C a r y Thompson was a l s o an occupant o f the property and t h a t 2 he a l s o had f a i l e d t o 2080578 surrender p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y i n response t o Wachovia's demand. Katrenia court and M i t c h e l l , a c t i n g pro se, sent i n response t o Wachovia's c o m p l a i n t . letters the trial Neither J o n e s n o r Thompson r e s p o n d e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . On December 4, 2007, t h e t r i a l Wachovia court entered and a g a i n s t a d e f a u l t judgment i n f a v o r o f a l l the defendants; however, because K a t r e n i a and M i t c h e l l had responded t o Wachovia's c o m p l a i n t by sending set the t r i a l court l e t t e r s , the t r i a l court subsequently a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o them. On A p r i l 1, 2008, W a c h o v i a moved t h e t r i a l court p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t K a t r e n i a a n d M i t c h e l l as W a c h o v i a c l a i m e d for a insofar (1) t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d (2) t h a t K a t r e n i a a n d M i t c h e l l had f o r f e i t e d their to vacate the statutory right property within possession. 10 I n support o f redemption by f a i l i n g days after Wachovia had demanded o f the motion, Wachovia submitted an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d b y K i m b e r l y R a l s t o n i n w h i c h she s t a t e d t h a t she was an a g e n t o f W a c h o v i a who h a d k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g t h e account of K a t r e n i a , Jones, and M i t c h e l l ; that Ameriquest M o r t g a g e Company, w h i c h h a d h e l d a m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y , 3 2080578 had assigned i t s r i g h t s under the mortgage t o W a c h o v i a ; t h a t Wachovia had f o r e c l o s e d t h e m o r t g a g e on S e p t e m b e r 24, t h a t W a c h o v i a h a d become t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y of i t s purchasing the property at the f o r e c l o s u r e by 2007; virtue s a l e ; that W a c h o v i a , on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2007, h a d s e n t K a t r e n i a , J o n e s , and M i t c h e l l a l e t t e r demanding t h a t t h e y s u r r e n d e r possession of t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n 10 d a y s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 6-5-251, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; and t h a t K a t r e n i a , to surrender authenticated property 1 possession copies J o n e s , and M i t c h e l l h a d of the property. of the f o r e c l o s u r e t o W a c h o v i a and t h e l e t t e r I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 6-5-251 1 failed The a f f i d a v i t deed conveying demanding p o s s e s s i o n provides: "(a) The possession of the land must be delivered to the purchaser or purchaser's t r a n s f e r e e s by t h e d e b t o r o r mortgagor i f i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n o r i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f anyone h o l d i n g u n d e r them by p r i v i t y o f t i t l e , w i t h i n t e n (10) d a y s a f t e r w r i t t e n demand f o r t h e p o s s e s s i o n has been made b y , o r on b e h a l f of, the purchasers or purchasers transferees. "(c) F a i l u r e of the d e b t o r or mortgagor o r anyone h o l d i n g p o s s e s s i o n u n d e r h i m o r h e r t o c o m p l y with the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n f o r f e i t s the r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n o f t h e d e b t o r o r one h o l d i n g possession under the debtor." 4 also the of 2080578 the p r o p e r t y , w h i c h were a t t a c h e d t o the a f f i d a v i t . On May 8, 2008, K a t r e n i a , now r e p r e s e n t e d filed b y an a t t o r n e y , an amended a n s w e r a s s e r t i n g a s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e that "[Wachovia] i s without l e g a l t i t l e to the property defective Therefore, be notice, defective s a l e , and w r o n g f u l due t o foreclosure. s a i d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e a n d d e e d a r e v o i d a n d due t o set aside and h e l d f o r naught." On May 9, 2008, t h e t r i a l court entered a partial summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t K a t r e n i a a n d M i t c h e l l due t o t h e i r f a i l u r e t o f i l e any e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o W a c h o v i a ' s p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y judgment m o t i o n . However, t h a t same d a y , K a t r e n i a ' s f i l e d a R u l e 5 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a f f i d a v i t to Wachovia's partial-summary-judgment s t a t e d t h a t he n e e d e d d i s c o v e r y motion to obtain i n opposition i n which the t r i a l judgment e n t e r e d court against to set aside the p a r t i a l summary on t h e p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a n d , on May 29, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t conduct d i s c o v e r y Katrenia h e r on May 9 on t h e g r o u n d t h a t she had n o t r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g t h a t m o t i o n . The t r i a l he evidence t o prove t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e was n o t v a l i d . On May 14, 2008, moved attorney court regarding also granted Katrenia granted leave to the v a l i d i t y of the f o r e c l o s u r e . 5 2080578 On August Wachovia's 14, 2008, Katrenia filed partial-summary-judgment asserted that W a c h o v i a had entitled to possession failed a motion to response to which she in e s t a b l i s h that of the p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e , she i t was said, i t had n o t p r o v e d t h a t i t had p r o p e r l y f o r e c l o s e d t h e m o r t g a g e on the p r o p e r t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , properly foreclosed the she a s s e r t e d t h a t W a c h o v i a had mortgage because, she said, mortgage r e q u i r e d t h a t Wachovia g i v e her n o t i c e of the not the default i n payment o f t h e d e b t s e c u r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e , n o t i c e o f the a c c e l e r a t i o n o f t h a t d e b t , and n o t i c e of the foreclosure and W a c h o v i a had such n o t i c e . In a d d i t i o n , she entitled the f a i l e d to give her asserted t h a t W a c h o v i a was property b e c a u s e she had not to possession of not r e c e i v e d a demand f o r possession from Wachovia f o l l o w i n g the foreclosure. Katrenia supported her partial-summary-judgment response with an received notice to Wachovia's affidavit in which notice the default of the of acceleration she of stated i n the the f o r e c l o s u r e , o r a demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n she was served that she payment o f debt, motion had the notice of the p r o p e r t y not debt, of the before w i t h p r o c e s s i n Wachovia's ejectment a c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n t o her a f f i d a v i t , Katrenia 6 submitted a copy 2080578 o f an a d j u s t a b l e - r a t e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e ( " t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e " ) d a t e d November 8, 2005, i n w h i c h o n l y J o n e s and M i t c h e l l h a d p r o m i s e d t o p a y A m e r i q u e s t p r i n c i p a l i n t h e amount o f $60,000 together with i n t e r e s t ; a mortgage ("the mortgage") dated November 8, 2005, i n w h i c h K a t r e n i a , J o n e s , and M i t c h e l l h a d granted A m e r i q u e s t a mortgage on the property i n order s e c u r e t h e payment o f t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e ; a l e t t e r attorney sent to by J . S t e v e n M o b l e y ( " t h e M o b l e y l e t t e r " ) by f a c s i m i l e transmission authorized t o S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g , LLC, t h e e n t i t y by W a c h o v i a t o s e r v i c e t h e m o r t g a g e , on M a r c h 5, 2 0 0 7 ; and an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n J o n e s a n d M i t c h e l l , on t h e one hand, and S p e c i a l i z e d L o a n Servicing, on the other, dated M a r c h 7, 2007 ( " t h e f o r b e a r a n c e a g r e e m e n t " ) . The M o b l e y l e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t Mobley r e p r e s e n t e d J o n e s ; t h a t Jones had learned t h a t S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g had s c h e d u l e d a f o r e c l o s u r e sale not o f t h e p r o p e r t y f o r M a r c h 19, 2 0 0 7 ; and t h a t J o n e s h a d been aware that the mortgage was i n default until he r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 16, 2007, f r o m t h e l a w f i r m of S i r o t e & P e r m u t t . The foreclosure sale be Mobley suspended letter so that requested Jones that could the make a r r a n g e m e n t s t o p a y t h e p a s t - d u e payments on t h e m o r t g a g e . The 7 2080578 forbearance Loan agreement e v i d e n c e d Servicing consideration to an a g r e e m e n t by S p e c i a l i z e d suspend the foreclosure o f J o n e s ' s and M i t c h e l l ' s a g r e e i n g past-due mortgage Mitchell also payments agreed that in 12 they installments. had received sale in t o pay the Jones and the n o t i c e of d e f a u l t and t h e n o t i c e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e r e q u i r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e and t h a t , due under Servicing the i f they defaulted forbearance could sell the i n m a k i n g t h e payments agreement, property at Specialized foreclosure a Loan sale w i t h o u t g i v i n g them any f u r t h e r n o t i c e . Thereafter, the t r i a l partial-summary-judgment court held a hearing motion. argued t h a t , although K a t r e n i a At the on W a c h o v i a ' s hearing, denied being given Wachovia the n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o f o r e c l o s u r e , t h e mortgage provided that notice to any of the mortgagors c o n s t i t u t e d n o t i c e t o a l l o f them and t h a t W a c h o v i a h a d J o n e s and M i t c h e l l the n o t i c e prerequisite to foreclosure. court continuance for a required Katrenia given by t h e m o r t g a g e as a t h e n moved t h e she could o b t a i n a f f i d a v i t s f r o m J o n e s and M i t c h e l l , and t h e t r i a l court granted her motion. of the hearing Thereafter, 8 Katrenia so that trial filed affidavits 2080578 signed any b y J o n e s and M i t c h e l l i n w h i c h t h e y d e n i e d notice foreclosing that Wachovia t h e mortgage court the a f f i d a v i t s receiving the debt court to o f M i t c h e l l and J o n e s , b u t t h e trial motion. another hearing judgment m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l that motion. I n p e r t i n e n t or a demand f o r W a c h o v i a moved t h e t r i a l d i d n o t r u l e on t h a t Following accelerating and d e n i e d possession of the property. strike was receiving on W a c h o v i a ' s p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - court entered p a r t , that order an o r d e r granting stated: "The s a i d m o r t g a g e r e q u i r e s t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t i c e be given i n t h e e v e n t o f d e f a u l t i n p a y m e n t s and a c c e l e r a t i o n o f the mortgaged i n d e b t e d n e s s : "'22. A c c e l e r a t i o n ; R e m e d i e s . L e n d e r s h a l l give notice to Borrower prior to a c c e l e r a t i o n f o l l o w i n g Borrower's breach o f any c o v e n a n t i n t h i s S e c u r i t y I n s t r u m e n t . ... The n o t i c e shall s p e c i f y : ( a ) the d e f a u l t ; ( b ) the a c t i o n r e q u i r e d t o cure t h e d e f a u l t ; (c) a d a t e , n o t l e s s t h a n 30 days from t h e date t h e n o t i c e i s g i v e n t o B o r r o w e r , b y w h i c h t h e d e f a u l t must be c u r e d ; a n d (d) t h a t f a i l u r e t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t on o r b e f o r e t h e d a t e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e may r e s u l t i n a c c e l e r a t i o n o f the sums secured by this Security I n s t r u m e n t a n d s a l e o f t h e P r o p e r t y . The notice s h a l l f u r t h e r inform Borrower of the r i g h t t o r e i n s t a t e a f t e r a c c e l e r a t i o n and the r i g h t t o b r i n g a c o u r t a c t i o n t o a s s e r t t h e n o n - e x i s t e n c e o f a d e f a u l t o r any o t h e r d e f e n s e o f B o r r o w e r t o a c c e l e r a t e and s a l e . I f t h e d e f a u l t i s n o t c u r e d on o r b e f o r e 9 2080578 the d a t e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e , L e n d e r a t i t s o p t i o n may r e q u i r e i m m e d i a t e payment i n f u l l o f a l l sums s e c u r e d b y t h i s S e c u r i t y I n s t r u m e n t w i t h o u t f u r t h e r demand and may i n v o k e t h e power o f s a l e and any o t h e r r e m e d i e s p e r m i t t e d by A p p l i c a b l e Law " ' I f L e n d e r i n v o k e s t h e power o f s a l e , Lender s h a l l g i v e a copy of a n o t i c e t o B o r r o w e r i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 1 5 . ( e m p h a s i s added [by t r i a l c o u r t ] ) . "Section 15 o f t h e s a i d November mortgage p r o v i d e s the f o l l o w i n g : 8, 2005 "'15. Notices. A l l notices given by Borrower or Lender i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s S e c u r i t y I n s t r u m e n t must be i n w r i t i n g . Any n o t i c e to Borrower i n connection w i t h t h i s S e c u r i t y I n s t r u m e n t s h a l l be deemed t o have b e e n g i v e n t o B o r r o w e r when m a i l e d by f i r s t c l a s s m a i l and when a c t u a l l y d e l i v e r e d t o B o r r o w e r ' s n o t i c e a d d r e s s i f s e n t by o t h e r means. N o t i c e t o any one B o r r o w e r s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e notice to a l l Borrowers, unless A p p l i c a b l e Law e x p r e s s l y r e q u i r e o t h e r w i s e . The n o t i c e a d d r e s s s h a l l be t h e P r o p e r t y A d d r e s s u n l e s s B o r r o w e r has d e s i g n a t e d a s u b s t i t u t e n o t i c e a d d r e s s by n o t i c e t o Lender. Borrower shall promptly notify L e n d e r o f B o r r o w e r ' s change o f a d d r e s s . ' ( e m p h a s i s added [by t r i a l c o u r t ] ) . "On June 10, 2007, c e r t i f i e d m a i l n o t i c e was a t t e m p t e d on D e f e n d a n t s T e r r e l l J o n e s and Wanda M i t c h e l l at the P r o p e r t y Address, t h a t the s a i d note and m o r t g a g e was i n d e f a u l t due t o t h e f a i l u r e o f the s a i d Defendants t o pay t h e March 1, 2007 installment payment and a l l monthly payments a c c r u i n g s i n c e t h a t d a t e . The s a i d l e t t e r i n c l u d e d a l l t h e i t e m s o f n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by P a r a g r a p h 22 o f t h e s a i d m o r t g a g e c i t e d h e r e i n a b o v e . The s a i d l e t t e r 10 2080578 was returned by the US Postal Service marked ' u n c l a i m e d ' a f t e r t h r e e a t t e m p t e d d e l i v e r i e s on May 18, 23 and June 3, 2007. "On J u l y 10, 2007, a s e c o n d a t t e m p t e d c e r t i f i e d m a i l n o t i c e was made on D e f e n d a n t s T e r r e l l J o n e s and Wanda M i t c h e l l a t the said Property Address, n o t i f y i n g them o f t h e d e f a u l t i n p a y m e n t s and i n t e n t t o a c c e l e r a t e t h e d e b t . The s a i d l e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t a f a i l u r e t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t by r e m i t t i n g $4,806.07 by A u g u s t 12, 2007 c o u l d r e s u l t i n a c c e l e r a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e d e b t and t h e commencement o f f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g . However, a f t e r t h r e e a t t e m p t s on J u l y 11, 16 and 26, 2007, t h i s c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r was r e t u r n e d as w e l l , m a r k e d ' U n c l a i m e d ' t o t h e s e n d e r , S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g , LLC. On A u g u s t 17, 2007, t h e law f i r m , S i r o t e & P e r m u t t , PC i s s u e d first class mail to Defendants T e r r e l l Jones, Wanda M i t c h e l l and K a t [ r e ] n i a Thompson d i r e c t e d a t two a d d r e s s e s , 3320 R i d g e Manner D r i v e , A p t #2 and 2600 1 5 t h S t r e e t West, t h e P r o p e r t y A d d r e s s . The A u g u s t 17, 2007 l e t t e r p u r p o r t e d l y notified [Katrenia, J o n e s , and M i t c h e l l ] t h a t the a s s i g n e e of the m o r t g a g e , P l a i n t i f f W a c h o v i a Bank, NA, accelerated t h e d e b t and t h e amount n e e d e d t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t w o u l d be $66,164.09. The s a i d A u g u s t 17, 2007 l e t t e r was a l s o a n o t i c e t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s t h a t P l a i n t i f f was invoking the power o f s a l e by instituting foreclosure proceedings and a date for the f o r e c l o s u r e , S e p t e m b e r 24, 2007, was s p e c i f i e d i n t h e s a i d l e t t e r . The f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was c o n d u c t e d on t h a t s a i d d a t e , w h i c h i s a l s o t h e d a t e o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e F o r e c l o s u r e Deed. " I n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e A u g u s t 17, 2007 a t t o r n e y l e t t e r , s e n t by F i r s t C l a s s M a i l , was d i f f e r e n t i n content from the previous notices, which were a t t e m p t e d t o be d e l i v e r e d by c e r t i f i e d m a i l by t h e h o l d e r ' s a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g , Inc. The p r e v i o u s n o t i c e s were n o t i c e s of intent to accelerate the debt unless the a r r e a r a g e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e l e t t e r was p a i d , u n d e r 11 2080578 t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s d e f i n e d i n P a r a g r a p h 22 o f t h e s a i d m o r t g a g e . The n o t i c e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t a p o s s i b l e consequence of f a i l i n g t o cure the d e f a u l t w o u l d be t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . However, t h e A u g u s t 17, 2007 a t t o r n e y l e t t e r was t h e n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o f o r e c l o s e . While not adequate n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o a c c e l e r a t e , t h e l e t t e r does meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f n o t i c e t o e x e r c i s e t h e power o f s a l e . P a r a g r a p h 22 s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s , ' I f L e n d e r i n v o k e s t h e power o f s a l e , L e n d e r s h a l l g i v e a copy o f a n o t i c e t o B o r r o w e r i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 15.' S e c t i o n 15 p r o v i d e s t h a t n o t i c e t o one Borrower i s considered t o be n o t i c e t o a l l when delivered to the Property Address, or to any alternative address f o r which Borrowers have p r e v i o u s l y n o t i f i e d [the Lender] t o d i r e c t n o t i c e s , and when t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e n o t i c e i s t h e L e n d e r ' s i n t e n t t o e x e r c i s e i t s power o f s a l e . The record before the Court i s that [ K a t r e n i a , Jones, and Mitchell] d i d not apprise [Wachovia] of any a l t e r n a t i v e a d d r e s s and i n f a c t , t h e a f f i d a v i t o f K a t r e n i a Thompson p o s i t i v e l y a v e r s t h a t she r e s i d e s a t t h e s a i d p r o p e r t y a d d r e s s and h a s so r e s i d e d c o n t i n u o u s l y s i n c e F e b r u a r y 22, 1995 when h e r m o t h e r p a s s e d away and [ K a t r e n i a ] moved i n t o t h e r e s i d e n c e to care f o r her e l d e r l y f a t h e r , Joseph Jones. "These c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s f r o m [Wachovia] and/or its authorized representative are not the only notices that [Katrenia, Jones, and Mitchell] r e c e i v e d r e g a r d i n g t h e i r d e f a u l t on t h e s a i d n o t e and m o r t g a g e and o f t h e i n t e n t o f [Wachovia] a n d / o r i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o take a c t i o n under the terms of the s a i d mortgage. "The C o u r t has r e v i e w e d c o r r e s p o n d e n c e f r o m t h e l a w o f f i c e s o f J . S t e v e n M o b l e y t o an e n t i t y named S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g , d a t e d M a r c h 5, 2007, 4 d a y s a f t e r [ J o n e s and M i t c h e l l ' s ] f a i l u r e t o make t h e i r M a r c h 1, 2007 i n s t a l l m e n t payment. The s a i d l e t t e r makes s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e to the note and mortgage referenced hereinabove and of the 12 2080578 c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e b y s a i d i n d e b t e d n e s s was The l e t t e r s t a t e s : created. "'Mr. J o n e s and h i s s i s t e r s were t o p a y an e q u a l amount on t h e m o r t g a g e w h i c h w o u l d a l l o w K a t [ r e ] n i a Thompson t o l i v e i n t h e i r d e c e a s e d p a r e n t s ' home. The l e t t e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 16, 2007, f r o m t h e l a w o f f i c e o f S i r o t e & P e r m u t t was t h e f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y was n o t b e i n g p a i d by K a t [ r e ] n i a Thompson.' " C o u n s e l f o r D e f e n d a n t s , i n t h e M a r c h 5, 2007 correspondence, requested that a sale of the s a i d m o r t g a g e d p r o p e r t y , s c h e d u l e d t o t a k e p l a c e on M a r c h 19, 2007, be ' s e t a s i d e u n t i l s u c h t i m e as an affordable plan t o get current with past due m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s c a n be i m p l e m e n t e d ' "Defendants' counsel's e f f o r t s bore f r u i t i n t h a t on M a r c h 7, 2007, a new a g r e e m e n t was r e a c h e d s t y l e d : Repayment A g r e e m e n t ( F o r e c l o s u r e ) By and Between S p e c i a l i z e d L o a n S e r v i c i n g , LLC and T e r r e l l Jones and Wanda M i t c h e l l . The said agreement r e f e r e n c e d a l o a n number, ... w h i c h was r e f e r e n c e d in t h e June and July 2007 certified letters n o t i f y i n g D e f e n d a n t s o f p o s t - M a r c h 1, 2007 d e f a u l t s i n payments o f t h e s a i d l o a n s . The C o u r t i s t h u s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e M a r c h 7, 2007 a g r e e m e n t p e r t a i n s t o t h e same n o t e and m o r t g a g e a g r e e m e n t s t h a t a r e before i t i n t h i s action. "The s a i d a g r e e m e n t r e c i t e s t h a t f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s h a d begun on F e b r u a r y 2, 2007, b u t t h a t the loan servicing firm, as authorized r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e h o l d e r o f t h e m o r t g a g e , was w i l l i n g t o f o r e b e a r on e x e r c i s i n g i t s p r i n c i p a l ' s r i g h t under t h e n o t e and mortgage, under t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s specified i n t h e M a r c h 7, 2007 agreement. "The s a i d a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g w i t h 13 2080578 r e g a r d t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s ' a d m i s s i o n s and future n o t i c e o f t h e L e n d e r ' s e x e r c i s i n g i t s power o f s a l e : "'2. B o r r o w e r ' s A d m i s s i o n s . B o r r o w e r h e r e b y admits that the amounts owed by the B o r r o w e r t o t h e S e r v i c e r as s t a t e d above a r e f u l l y a c c u r a t e and v a l i d c h a r g e s u n d e r t h e Loan Documents and B o r r o w e r has no d e f e n s e s , o f f s e t s , o r c o u n t e r c l a i m s o f any nature whatsoever to the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of t h e Loan Documents, s u c h s t a t e d amounts, and t h e p e n d i n g f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g . ... "'6. Status of Default. The parties acknowledge t h a t t h e B o r r o w e r has b e e n n o t i f i e d of Borrower's d e f a u l t under the Loan Documents, t h a t t h e l o a n has b e e n accelerated, i f a p p l i c a b l e , and t h a t a 30-day demand l e t t e r was m a i l e d t o t h e B o r r o w e r on December 19, 2006. The demand l e t t e r and a l l f o r e c l o s u r e n o t i c e s a l r e a d y issued shall remain i n f u l l force and e f f e c t u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e B o r r o w e r becomes c o m p l e t e l y c u r r e n t i n B o r r o w e r ' s l o a n payments, f u l f i l l s a l l of Borrower's o b l i g a t i o n s p u r s u a n t t o t h i s a g r e e m e n t , and cures a l l of Borrower's d e f a u l t ( s ) under the Loan Documents. In the event of Borrower's d e f a u l t p u r s u a n t t o the terms of t h i s A g r e e m e n t , t h e P r e m i s e s may be s o l d a t a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e f o r the unpaid balance o f t h e m o n i e s due S e r v i c e r a t t h e e a r l i e s t a v a i l a b l e date, without further notice to Borrower.' (emphasis added [by trial court]). "The s a i d a g r e e m e n t was s i g n e d by D e f e n d a n t s T e r r e l l J o n e s and Wanda M i t c h e l l on M a r c h 14, 2007, and by S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g , LLC on M a r c h 30, 2007. " [ K a t r e n i a ] argues i n o p p o s i t i o n to 14 [Wachovia's] 2080578 m o t i o n f o r summary judgment t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e s s , by w h i c h [Wachovia] a c q u i r e d a f o r e c l o s u r e deed and the immediate right to possession t h e r e u n d e r , was d e f e c t i v e i n t h a t D e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t r e c e i v e p r o p e r n o t i c e of a c c e l e r a t i o n under the t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e s a i d m o r t g a g e . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ W a c h o v i a ' s ] c o m p l a i n t does n o t s e e k r e c o v e r y o f t h e a c c e l e r a t e d amount o f i t s d e b t , b u t p o s s e s s i o n a l o n g w i t h damages f o r wrongful r e t e n t i o n of p o s s e s s i o n of the s a i d r e a l p r o p e r t y s i n c e t h e t i m e o f d e f a u l t and f o r e c l o s u r e . Whether t h e r e i s d e f e c t i v e n o t i c e t o a c c e l e r a t e the d e b t , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t o be i r r e l e v a n t t o t h i s action. "The n o t i c e t o w h i c h t h e C o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d i s t h e n o t i c e t o e x e r c i s e t h e power o f s a l e , that i s , the n o t i c e to i n s t i t u t e f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s w h i c h i s t h e means by w h i c h [Wachovia] s e e k s t h e remedy o f e j e c t m e n t o f D e f e n d a n t s f r o m p o s s e s s i o n . Under t h e terms of t h e mortgage, s a i d n o t i c e t o one o f t h e B o r r o w e r s i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be notice to a l l Borrowers. Defendant Kat[re]nia Thompson b e i n g one o f t h e 3 B o r r o w e r s , n o t i c e t o D e f e n d a n t M i t c h e l l and D e f e n d a n t J o n e s , c o n s t i t u t e s constructive notice to Defendant [Katrenia] Thompson. "The M a r c h 7, 2007 f o r b e a r a n c e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n [Wachovia's] a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , S p e c i a l i z e d Loan S e r v i c i n g , LLC, and two o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s , T e r r e l l J o n e s and Wanda M i t c h e l l , m o d i f [ i e s ] the n o t i c e t e r m s o f t h e s a i d m o r t g a g e n o t e by s p e c i f y i n g t h a t the n o t i c e w h i c h s a i d Defendants had a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d d a t i n g b a c k t o December 19, 2006 ' s h a l l r e m a i n i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t ' and t h a t no f u r t h e r n o t i c e w o u l d be r e q u i r e d i n t h e e v e n t o f a d e f a u l t under the terms of the said March 7, 2007 f o r b e a r a n c e agreement. " D e f e n d a n t K a t [ r e ] n i a Thompson h a d c o n s t r u c t i v e 15 2080578 notice through the notice provided to her co-mortgagees, Defendants Jones and M i t c h e l l , by operation o f the terms o f t h e March 7, 2007 f o r b e a r a n c e agreement, and she had a c t u a l n o t i c e t h r o u g h t h e A u g u s t 17, 2007 f i r s t c l a s s letter mailed t o the Property Address, which i s the address specified i n the notice provisions of the instrument i t s e l f t o w h i c h o f f i c i a l n o t i c e i s t o be s e n t . The o n l y way t h a t some o t h e r a d d r e s s w o u l d have been p r o p e r , under t h e terms o f t h e s a i d mortgage, would be had Defendant [Katrenia] Thompson advised [Wachovia] or i t s authorized representative, S p e c i a l i z e d L o a n S e r v i c i n g , L L C , o f an a l t e r n a t i v e a d d r e s s . D e f e n d a n t [ K a t r e n i a ] Thompson's a f f i d a v i t does n o t so s t a t e . "Since notice t o one D e f e n d a n t i s deemed s u f f i c i e n t as n o t i c e t o a l l D e f e n d a n t s under t h e terms o f t h e s a i d note, t h e Court f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no d e f e c t i n t h e n o t i c e t o e x e r c i s e i t s power o f sale with reference to Defendant [Katrenia] Thompson. " "The f o r e g o i n g m a t t e r s a n d a u t h o r i t y h a v i n g been c o n s i d e r e d by t h e Court, t h e f o l l o w i n g i s hereby ORDERED: "1. T h e r e b e i n g no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l f a c t and as a m a t t e r o f l a w [Wachovia] i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t , m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s rendered i n favor of the Plaintiff [Wachovia] and a g a i n s t t h e Defendant K a t [ r e ] n i a Thompson r e g a r d i n g p o s s e s s i o n a n d t h e f o r f e i t u r e of her r i g h t of redemption. Motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y GRANTED." Following entry of the order summary-judgment m o t i o n , W a c h o v i a 16 granting i t s partial- moved t h e t r i a l court t o 2080578 c e r t i f y t h a t o r d e r as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Ala. R. C i v . P., and t h e t r i a l 54(b), c o u r t d i d s o . K a t r e n i a moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e the p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; h o w e v e r , t h e trial court denied t h a t motion. K a t r e n i a then t i m e l y appealed t o t h e supreme c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l the partial court stayed execution summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t Katrenia p a y a s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d i n t h e amount o f $5,000. The court subsequently on supreme t r a n s f e r r e d Katrenia's appeal t o t h i s court p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. On appeal, Katrenia asserts that the p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s v o i d b e c a u s e , she s a y s , the trial court Wachovia's ejectment challenge the t r i a l the lacked action was jurisdiction may subject-matter action. court's subject-matter in the not be subject-matter jurisdiction party e v e n be and may Although trial court, waived; a jurisdiction Katrenia over did jurisdiction not while "'"subject-matter court's lack of may be r a i s e d a t any t i m e b y any r a i s e d by a court M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1050 ex mero motu."'" ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452, 455 ( A l a . C i v . App. 17 2080578 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n C . J . L . v . M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 451, 453 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ) . Our r e v i e w court's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of a challenge t o a trial i s de novo. M.B.L. 1 So. 3d a t 1050. Katrenia asserts that the t r i a l court lacked matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over Wachovia's ejectment she says, possession ejectment to Wachovia of the property action, confer Katrenia d i d n o t have a c t i o n because, right the date to immediate i t commenced i t s a r i g h t t h a t , K a t r e n i a s a y s , was subject-matter argues on the subject- that jurisdiction Wachovia on necessary the t r i a l d i d n o t have court. the r i g h t to i m m e d i a t e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y on t h e d a t e i t commenced its ejectment October action 1, 2007, K a t r e n i a , Jones, demanding that because less than i t commenced 10 d a y s a f t e r i t s action i t allegedly on sent a n d M i t c h e l l a l e t t e r on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2007, they surrender w i t h i n 10 d a y s p u r s u a n t possession of the property t o § 6-5-251, A l a . Code 1975. K a t r e n i a b a s e s h e r a r g u m e n t t h a t W a c h o v i a d i d n o t have t h e r i g h t t o immediate p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y u n t i l 10 d a y s which after states i t s demand that, on t h e l a n g u a g e following 18 a the e x p i r a t i o n of of § foreclosure 6-5-251(a), sale, "[t]he 2080578 p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d must be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p u r c h a s e r [ o f the property at the foreclosure sale] or purchaser's t r a n s f e r e e s by t h e debtor o r mortgagor i f i n t h e i r possession o r i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f anyone h o l d i n g u n d e r them b y p r i v i t y of t i t l e , w i t h i n t e n (10) d a y s a f t e r w r i t t e n demand f o r t h e p o s s e s s i o n h a s b e e n made b y , o r on b e h a l f o f , t h e p u r c h a s e r s or purchaser's the t r a n s f e r e e s . " ( E m p h a s i s added.) W a c h o v i a , on o t h e r h a n d , a r g u e s t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e l a n g u a g e o f § 6-5- 251(a), i t had the r i g h t property as soon as t o immediate i t purchased possession the property of the at the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on S e p t e m b e r 24, 2007. Neither Jones party v. B u t l e r , purchaser against has c i t e d 286 A l a . a case directly on p o i n t . I n 69, 237 So. 2d 460 (1970), t h e a t a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e b r o u g h t an e j e c t m e n t the mortgagor i n possession, a n d t h e supreme action court s t a t e d t h a t when " t h e o r i g i n a l m o r t g a g e a n d f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d , o r c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f t h e r e c o r d t h e r e o f , were i n t r o d u c e d i n evidence, failure prima coupled with proof o f demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n , a n d to deliver possession, such i n t r o d u c t i o n made o u t a f a c i e c a s e f o r [ t h e p l a i n t i f f who b r o u g h t t h e e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n ] . " 286 A l a . a t 7 1 , 237 So. 2d a t 462 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 19 2080578 Based on § 6-5-251 (a) a n d t h e q u o t e conclude that Wachovia f r o m J o n e s v. B u t l e r , d i d n o t have a right to we immediate p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l 10 d a y s a f t e r i t made demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2007, a n d t h a t i t s e j e c t m e n t c l a i m d i d n o t a c c r u e u n t i l K a t r e n i a , J o n e s , and Mitchell f a i l e d t o d e l i v e r p o s s e s s i o n 10 d a y s a f t e r Wachovia made t h a t demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n . Thus, when W a c h o v i a commenced its e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n on O c t o b e r 1, 2007, i t s e j e c t m e n t had n o t y e t a c c r u e d ; t h a t c l a i m d i d n o t a c c r u e u n t i l Jones, and Mitchell failed to deliver claim Katrenia, possession of the p r o p e r t y b y O c t o b e r 5, 2007. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e i s s u e b e f o r e u s is whether Wachovia's four trial days before commencement i t s ejectment of i t s ejectment claim accrued action deprived the c o u r t o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . N e i t h e r p a r t y has c i t e d an A l a b a m a c a s e d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e . However, in B l u m b e r g v . USAA C a s u a l t y I n s u r a n c e Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001), the F l o r i d a remedy f o r t h e p r e m a t u r e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p r o p e r f i l i n g o f an a c t i o n i s t h e a b a t e m e n t o r s t a y i n g o f t h e a c t i o n u n t i l i t a c c r u e s . 790 So. 2d a t 1065. We f i n d t h a t h o l d i n g p e r s u a s i v e . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e W a c h o v i a ' s commencing i t s e j e c t m e n t 20 action that f o u r days b e f o r e 2080578 i t s ejectment c l a i m accrued d i d not d e p r i v e the t r i a l c o u r t of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over Wachovia's ejectment a c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l address the m e r i t s of the p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l summary court. " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004) . I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) . Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact. Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of impartial j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989) Dow (Ala. v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 2004). K a t r e n i a a r g u e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g Wachovia's partial-summary-judgment 21 motion 2080578 b e c a u s e , she s a y s , W a c h o v i a f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a b s e n c e o f a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l n o t i f i e d of the f o r e c l o s u r e fact regarding w h e t h e r she was sale. In her a f f i d a v i t , K a t r e n i a denied r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of the September 24, 2007, concluded that Katrenia the 24, foreclosure September sale. had r e c e i v e d 2007, foreclosure The trial constructive because court notice (1) J o n e s of and M i t c h e l l had a g r e e d i n t h e f o r b e a r a n c e agreement t h a t t h e y had received notice foreclosure forbearance of the p r e v i o u s l y sale; s c h e d u l e d M a r c h 19, (2) J o n e s and M i t c h e l l agreement to waive any 2007, had a g r e e d i n the notice of another f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e i f t h e y d e f a u l t e d i n p a y i n g t h e payments due under the the mortgage notice the forbearance provided to a l l . forbearance right to notice that agreement; notice and t o one 15 of of the mortgagors However, b e c a u s e K a t r e n i a agreement, Section was was not a p a r t y to she d i d n o t a g r e e t o w a i v e h e r o f t h e September 24, 2007, foreclosure sale p u r s u a n t t o t h e m o r t g a g e . Thus, d e s p i t e J o n e s ' s and M i t c h e l l ' s w a i v e r o f n o t i c e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 24, 2007, f o r e c l o s u r e W a c h o v i a was s t i l l of that o b l i g a t e d by t h e m o r t g a g e t o e f f e c t foreclosure s a l e on K a t r e n i a 22 sale, notice i n accordance with the 2080578 mortgage. A c c o r d i n g l y , the trial court erred i n s o f a r as i t notice the c o n c l u d e d t h a t Wachovia e f f e c t e d c o n s t r u c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 24, Jones's of 2007, f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on K a t r e n i a by v i r t u e o f and Mitchell's entering into the forbearance agreement. Sections could 22 and effect notice s a l e on K a t r e n i a by 15 o f t h e m o r t g a g e p r o v i d e of the September 24, t h a t Wachovia 2007, foreclosure sending a n o t i c e of t h a t f o r e c l o s u r e t o K a t r e n i a , J o n e s , o r M i t c h e l l by f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l to the The property court other address designated 2007 letter"), Permutt sent to K a t r e n i a , mail addressed to contains a pleading copy or the of l e t t e r to the t r i a l which the J o n e s , and property. the affidavit Wachovia that 17 purporting m o t i o n . See i s properly Ex p a r t e R y a l s , firm of M i t c h e l l by letter to Sirote record nor submit neither contains the before 773 23 So. c o u r t may August 1013 any 17 ruling consider i t upon s u b m i s s i o n 2d 1011, & first-class It i s well settled that, in on a summary-judgment m o t i o n , a t r i a l material law However, t h e August court. had them. n o t i c e on K a t r e n i a by v i r t u e o f a l e t t e r d a t e d A u g u s t 17, 17 that by such August concluded addressed effected ("the trial o r t o any sale of only the ( A l a . 2000) 2080578 ("A t r i a l court consideration of d e c i d e s a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t upon a of whatever m a t e r i a l s or i n opposition consider to the motion. The trial court cannot any f a c t s n o t o f j u d i c i a l n o t i c e e x c e p t t h o s e e v i d e n c e d by m a t e r i a l s upon are submitted i n support submission (citations properly of the omitted)). before contained motion Because the i n the t r i a l trial for summary the August court court facts record judgment." was n o t submission upon 17 l e t t e r of the partial-summary-judgment motion, the t r i a l erred i n concluding that, on notice the basis of the of that September letter, 24, Wachovia 2007, had foreclosure effected sale on Katrenia. Because K a t r e n i a d e n i e d r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e o f t h e September 24, 2007, evidence proving accordance genuine foreclosure with issue that sale i t had the notice a Wachovia p r o p e r l y and W a c h o v i a material effected provisions fact exists failed such to submit notice in o f the mortgage, regarding a whether e f f e c t e d n o t i c e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 24, 2007, f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on K a t r e n i a . C o n s e q u e n t l y , a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material fact exists was v a l i d regarding whether t h a t f o r e c l o s u r e and whether Wachovia had t h e r i g h t t o p o s s e s s i o n 24 sale of 2080578 the property. judgment and consistent with Therefore, remand this we the reverse action opinion. the p a r t i a l for further summary proceedings 2 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , Because K a t r e n i a ' s argument t h a t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material fact exists regarding whether Wachovia e f f e c t e d p r o p e r n o t i c e o f t h e September 24, 2007, f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on h e r d i s p o s e s o f t h e a p p e a l , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o t h e r i s s u e s she h a s r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g the merits of the p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t . 2 25
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
