Howard Ross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/01/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((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, 2012-2013 2111182 Howard Ross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-08-900252) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Howard the Madison Wells Judge. Ross appeals Circuit Court from Court F a r g o B a n k , N.A. We a summary ("the t r i a l reverse. judgment e n t e r e d court") by i n favor of 2111182 Wells Fargo by and filing a "complaint ejectment" seeking as i n i t i a t e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w i n M a r c h 2008 to f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment, a g a i n s t Ross and certain title right to immediate p o s s e s s i o n . July judgment 2008, with documentation title to to the a that, to filed among o t h e r i t s redemption 1 Fargo Ross f i l e d filed supporting defendants, rights an an among o t h e r t h i n g s , to and i t s answer pro a motion brief, things, for a se. summary affidavit, traced Wells and Fargo's property. Approximately Fargo establish Wells a number o f o t h e r property, quiet In and real redemption s i x months a motion p r e v e n t Ross and the p r o p e r t y . later, f o r a temporary another i n December defendant F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on from things, request Fargo's leasing or t h a t motion, 19, Wells Wells restraining order seeking c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r on F e b r u a r y denied 2008, 2009, t h a t , for selling the trial among o t h e r a temporary D u r i n g the proceedings below, c e r t a i n defendants were dismissed without prejudice. W e l l s F a r g o a l s o amended i t s c o m p l a i n t s e v e r a l t i m e s and added c e r t a i n o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s . U l t i m a t e l y , d e f a u l t judgments were e n t e r e d a g a i n s t most of the o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s , and t h e summary j u d g m e n t d i s p o s e d o f t h e issues i n v o l v i n g the other remaining defendants. 1 2 2111182 r e s t r a i n i n g order. in I n that order, the t r i a l court determined, part: " T h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d b y [ W e l l s F a r g o ] s e e k i n g a b i l l t o q u i e t t i t l e and ejectment o f [Ross a n d other defendants] from a p a r c e l o f land, l o c a t e d i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , more p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b e d as, t o w i t : " L o t 5, B l o c k O, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e map o f s u r v e y o f t h e S u b d i v i s i o n o f C o n c o r d P l a c e , as r e c o r d e d i n the O f f i c e o f t h e Judge of Probate of Madison C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , i n P l a t B o o k 5, P a g e 3 9 "[Wells Fargo] traces i t s t i a n d M a r c u s Y o u n g , who a l l e g e d l y p a r c e l on September 24, 2004, purchase w i t h a mortgage g i v e n Company, L L C . t l e back t o Sequita purchased the said and f i n a n c e d said t o Argent Mortgage "On D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , A r g e n t M o r t g a g e C o m p a n y a l l e g e d l y executed an a s s i g n m e n t o f i t s m o r t g a g e i n t e r e s t i n t h e above d e s c r i b e d r e a l p r o p e r t y t o A m e r i q u e s t M o r t g a g e C o m p a n y , w h i c h a s s i g n m e n t was a l l e g e d l y r e c o r d e d o n S e p t e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 6 . However, [Wells Fargo's] s a i d e x h i b i t describes a d i f f e r e n t p a r c e l o f p r o p e r t y a n d names a d i f f e r e n t m o r t g a g o r , n a m e l y , D o n a l d W i l l i a m s a n d w i f e M i a M. W i l l i a m s a n d a p a r c e l d e s c r i p t i o n s e t out i n E x h i b i t A t o the s a i d assignment, t o w i t : " ' L o t 16 B l o c k 2 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e map o f s u r v e y of H o l l y A c r e s . S i x t h A d d i t i o n , H u n t s v i l l e , Alabama a s r e c o r d e d i n P l a t B o o k 6, P a g e 4 5 , i n t h e O f f i c e of t h e Judge o f Probate o f Madison County, Alabama.' "On S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , [ W e l l s F a r g o ] a l l e g e s A m e r i q u e s t M o r t g a g e Company e x e c u t e d an a s s i g n m e n t of t h e s a i d mortgage t o t h e above d e s c r i b e d p a r c e l to ' W e l l s F a r g o B a n k , NA, a s T r u s t e e . ' The s a i d 3 2111182 assignment 2006. was allegedly recorded on September 7, "The s a i d d o c u m e n t r e f e r e n c e s S e q u i t a Y o u n g a n d her h u s b a n d M a r c u s Y o u n g as m o r t g a g o r s a n d sets f o r t h i n a n E x h i b i t 'A' t o t h e a s s i g n m e n t t h e p r o p e r l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the s a i d p a r c e l . "The balance of [Wells Fargo's] a l l e g a t i o n s d e s c r i b e and p r o v i d e e x h i b i t s documenting Defendant Howard Ross's p u r c h a s e o f t h e s a i d p a r c e l a t a u c t i o n f r o m t h e T a x C o l l e c t o r o f M a d i s o n C o u n t y A l a b a m a on May 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 . "[Wells Fargo] a l l e g e s that the l a s t holders of the w a r r a n t y deed t o t h e s a i d p a r c e l , S e q u i t a Young and Marcus Young, d e f a u l t e d under t h e terms o f t h e mortgage allegedly assigned to i t , which precipitated the foreclosure procedure which r e s u l t e d i n the issuance of a f o r e c l o s u r e deed t o [ W e l l s F a r g o ] o n J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , w h i c h s a i d d e e d was recorded i n t h e O f f i c e of t h e P r o b a t e Judge of M a d i s o n C o u n t y on S e p t e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 6 . "[Wells Fargo] claims s u p e r i o r t i t l e and t h e i m m e d i a t e r i g h t t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e s a i d p a r c e l as t o D e f e n d a n t R o s s a n d a l l D e f e n d a n t s who h o l d , w i l l h o l d o r who h a v e h e l d p o s s e s s i o n under Defendant Ross's c l a i m t o t i t l e and p o s s e s s i o n which arises from h i s purchase of the s a i d p a r c e l f o r d e l i n q u e n t real estate taxes. "Defendant Ross a s s e r t s t o t h e C o u r t t h a t the amount paid into Court by [Wells Fargo] as r e d e m p t i o n f o r t h e p r o p e r t y i s n o t a n a d e q u a t e sum under the redemption statues of the State of Alabama. Defendant Ross a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t [Wells F a r g o ] has i n o t h e r ways f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y method f o r redeeming r e a l p r o p e r t y , and thus there i s a genuine dispute with regard to which party holds superior title and the right of 4 2111182 immediate property. possession of the said parcel of real " "Given the c u r r e n t s t a t e of the t i t l e t o s a i d p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y , t h e C o u r t , upon p r e l i m i n a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n of [Wells Fargo's] motion f i n d s t h a t w h e t h e r [ W e l l s F a r g o ] s u c c e e d s on t h e m e r i t s o f i t s claim i s not at a l lclear at this point i n the p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t h a t due t o t h i s f a c t , does n o t f i n d that a l l of the necessary prerequisites to the i s s u a n c e o f an i n j u n c t i o n l i e a t t h i s t i m e . " "The f o r e g o i n g m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e Court, ORDERED: and a u t h o r i t y h a v i n g been the f o l l o w i n g i s hereby "[Wells Fargo's] motion for i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i s h e r e b y DENIED (Emphasis In summary added; footnotes October In February omitted.) 2011, W e l l s judgment with Fargo In again a supporting 2012, W e l l s Fargo f i l e d documentation. both preliminary filed brief and a motion for a documentation. a s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t and instances, Wells Fargo failed to correct the title-documentation problem noted i n the February 19, copies of 2009, order; i t continued to submit the erroneous mortgage assignment n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p r o p e r t y at issue i n this case. 5 2111182 In filed December what he 2011, Ross, referred t o as summary-judgment motion, documentation. Wells Fargo's affidavits and documentation; to Wells Fargo's a second "answer" t o along supporting 19, 2009, judgment] "answer," the t r i a l motion due court to uncontroverted title supports also maintained "deny the n o t been Shortly [Wells from of among Fargo's [Wells other summaryFargo] to t h a t make a s h o w i n g o f tax sale of the property i n f o r possession." Ross t h a t " [ W e l l s F a r g o ] h a s n o t made a p r i m a facie possession substantial requested, failure [ i t s ] request showing t h a t i t i s vested w i t h recover Ross material facts and redemption that that with material that has counsel, supporting things, to legal a l o n g w i t h a s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t and summary-judgment motion, In h i s second question "answer" I n March 2012, Ross f i l e d order. [its] an by among o t h e r t h i n g s , a c o p y o f t h e F e b r u a r y included, provide represented evidence a title that gives of the property. that h i s right [Ross] t o possess i ta has right provided the property terminated." thereafter, also i n March 2012, W e l l s Fargo, r e p r e s e n t e d by d i f f e r e n t l e g a l c o u n s e l , f i l e d what i t r e f e r r e d to as a " r e p l y " t o Ross's "answer"; t h a t " r e p l y , " 6 among other 2111182 things, added certificate "answer" The of an argument redemption t o " t h e new i s s u e trial court that was Ross's not timely. r a i s e d by conducted challenge a [Wells hearing Ross judgment, i n favor the t r i a l of Wells court Fargo on June filed on Wells Fargo's a summary 27, 2012; i n t h a t determined: " T h i s c a u s e came b e f o r e t h e C o u r t f o r h e a r i n g o n [ W e l l s F a r g o ' s ] M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t o n May 24, 2 0 1 2 , b o t h p a r t i e s h a v i n g a p p e a r e d . B a s e d upon the p l e a d i n g s and a l l matters submitted i n support of and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o s a i d motion, t h e Court i so f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any material fact, and [Wells Fargo] i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w . A c c o r d i n g l y , judgment i s entered i n f a v o r o f [Wells Fargo] and a g a i n s t Defendant. " I T I S f u r t h e r ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that [Wells Fargo] i s entitled to immediate possession of the real estate described i n the C o m p l a i n t ... , f o r w h i c h a w r i t o f p o s s e s s i o n shall immediately be i s s u e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Alabama law. "Upon t h e f i l i n g of a Writ of Execution by [Wells Fargo], the s h e r i f f i s hereby d i r e c t e d t o remove, s e t o u t and e v i c t t h e D e f e n d a n t ( s ) from t h e p r o p e r t y r e f e r e n c e d above. " N e i t h e r [Ross and t h e o t h e r ] D e f e n d a n t ( s ) n o r any o f t h e i r a g e n t s s h a l l d i s p o s e o f o r a l t e r t h e property described above, a n d i f [Ross and] t h e [ o t h e r ] D e f e n d a n t ( s ) o r t h e i r a g e n t s do d i s p o s e o f 7 an Fargo]." s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n o n May 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 , a n d e n t e r e d judgment toi t s 2111182 or alter punishment the property they maybe f o r contempt of C o u r t . subject to "The Defendant, Howard Ross[,] nor other D e f e n d a n t s [ , ] have f u r t h e r r i g h t t o p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y . "All property r i g h t s , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t i n and ... a r e v e s t e d i n [ W e l l s F a r g o ] . to the " F u r t h e r , no a d d i t i o n a l m o n e t a r y a m o u n t i s o w e d to D e f e n d a n t , Howard R o s s , o r t o any o f h i s a g e n t s or assigns, including insurance payments and preservation improvements. The p r o p e r t y has been r e d e e m e d as p e r t h e C e r t i f i c a t e o f R e d e m p t i o n filed as E x h i b i t ' F ' w i t h t h e M o t i o n f o r Summary J u d g m e n t in this action. As s u c h , s a i d r e d e m p t i o n o f t h e subject p r o p e r t y i s complete." Ross t i m e l y "[Wells Fargo] question and tax sale filed a postjudgment d i d not have p r o p e r never that redemption." would The m o t i o n on J u l y 29, court, and the completed have trial 2012. supreme 2 motion maintaining title to the p r o p e r t y i n the process entitled court of i t to denied redemption a Ross's judgment transferred c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code the from for postjudgment Ross t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o our court that case supreme to this 1975. We n o t e t h a t , w h i l e t h i s c a s e was p e n d i n g f o r m o r e t h a n f o u r y e a r s a t t h e t r i a l - c o u r t l e v e l , t h e c a s e was a s s i g n e d t o at l e a s t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t r i a l j u d g e s . 2 8 2111182 Regarding this court has the standard of review of a summary judgment, stated: "'We r e v i e w a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t de n o v o , a p p l y i n g t h e same s t a n d a r d as was a p p l i e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A m o t i o n f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s t o be granted w h e n 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 e x i s t s and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y 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 of law. R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m u s t make 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 as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y 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 . " Rule 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The c o u r t m u s t v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the nonmoving p a r t y and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t the movant. B a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2 d 412 (Ala. 1990). I f the movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , "the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o the nonmovant t o rebut the movant's prima facie showing by 'substantial evidence.'" Lee v. C i t y o f G a d s d e n , 592 So. 2 d 1 0 3 6 , 1038 (Ala. 1992).'" B a r r e t t v. 2d B r a s s Co., 883 (quoting 2003) Lee B a i l e y v. R.E. 122, 123 The there (Ala. Civ. dispositive issue foreclose foreclosure to the and on the proceedings. t o make a p r i m a 227, Garrison 228 (Ala. Civ. Trucking appeal, Co., i n essence, of m a t e r i a l property sell 2d App. 834 So. 2002)). e x i s t s a genuine issue Fargo's t i t l e failed App. So. and Ross f a c i e case 9 when i t contends as to whether fact regarding whether i t had property is power initiated that this the Wells issue Wells and to the Fargo that, 2111182 therefore, t h e summary judgment i s due t o be reversed. We agree. In never i t s brief corrected February (i.e., the 19, order demonstrates fact whether property Wells Fargo concedes that i t and, thus, the erroneous mortgage material Fargo court, the title-documentation 2009, property) and to this regarding i t had the error that noted i t s own i n the evidence assignment not associated that Wells there i s a genuine Fargo's power to title issue to the foreclose and that this judgment should of property sell when i t i n i t i a t e d t h e f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . concedes with be r e v e r s e d the Wells and t h e cause remanded f o rwhat i t m a i n t a i n s i s f u r t h e r development o f the record, (Ala. parties mortgage the foreclosure are correct prima facie to v. MorEquity, case t h a t assignee's proceedings). and t h a t the property Wells So. 3d 378 (reversing the t r i a l lack We Fargo of e x i s t e d as t o authority conclude failed to that the t o make a i t was t h e a s s i g n e e o f t h e m o r t g a g e a n d the authority to i n i t i a t e sell I n c . , 94 summary j u d g m e n t w h e r e a g e n u i n e d i s p u t e purported initiate had Byrd C i v . App. 2012) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) court's the citing t h e f o r e c l o s u r e proceedings and at issue. 10 2111182 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , the genuine title and issue title and of material whether foreclosure i t had proceedings the and i n l i g h t right of fact the regarding authority through which possession to 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 Fargo the i s reversed, proceedings consistent R E V E R S E D AND with cause this Wells to Fargo's initiate i t currently the property. court i n favor i s remanded opinion. of of the claims The Wells for further 3 REMANDED. Thomas, M o o r e , Pittman, and of the existence and Donaldson, J . , recuses JJ., concur. himself. B e c a u s e we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o n t h i s t h r e s h o l d i s s u e , we p r e t e r m i t a discussion of the other i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal. 3 11

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.