Ware v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner Monica Ware appealed a summary judgment in favor of Respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, the trustee for HSI Asset Securitization Corporation. The Bank foreclosed on Petitioner and published notice of the foreclosure in a local Birmingham newspaper. The court entered summary judgment against her. Petitioner then filed a motion to amend or vacate the judgment and requested a hearing. The trial court refused to rule on Petitioner’s motion or hold a hearing. The motion was deemed denied by operation of law. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner challenged the timing and propriety of the summary judgment and its refusal to rule on her motion to amend or vacate. In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the Supreme Court "searched [Petitioner’s] briefs in vain for the argument that she actually made in the trial court, namely, that the foreclosure was "null and void. . . .[A] remand . . . would serve no purpose other than to afford her a 'second bite at the apple.'" The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Download PDF
REL: 06/17/2011 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 , A l a b a m a 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1100822 Monica Ware v. D e u t s c h e Bank N a t i o n a l T r u s t Company, as t r u s t e e f o r HSI Asset Securitization C o r p o r a t i o n 2006-0PT2 Mortgage P a s s Through C e r t i f i c a t e s , S e r i e s 2006-OPT2 Appeal WOODALL, from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-08-2841) Court Justice. Monica Ware appeals from a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f D e u t s c h e Bank N a t i o n a l T r u s t Company, as t r u s t e e f o r HSI A s s e t Securitization Corporation 2006-0PT2 Mortgage Pass-Through 1100822 Certificates, trustee's ejectment I. The Series action Factual against and ("the her. Procedural two s u c c e s s i v e the Alabama We in pertinent a newspaper in On May 17, 2008, published in published SALE "Default h a v i n g b e e n made i n p a y m e n t i n t h e payment o f t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s s e c u r e d by t h a t c e r t a i n mortgage e x e c u t e d b y M o n i c a S. Ware a n d spouse, Gerald James Ware, to Option One Mortgage Corporation on J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , s a i d m o r t g a g e being r e c o r d e d i n the o f f i c e of the Judge of P r o b a t e of Jefferson County, Alabama, in Instrument No. 200511/1622, and subsequently transferred and a s s i g n e d t o D e u t s c h e B a n k N a t i o n a l T r u s t Company as trustee f o r HSI A s s e t Securitization Corporation 2006-OPT2 M o r t g a g e P a s s - T h r o u g h C e r t i f i c a t e s , S e r i e s 2 0 0 6 - O P T 2 ; D e u t s c h e B a n k N a t i o n a l T r u s t Company as trustee f o r HSI A s s e t Securitization Corporation 2006-OPT2 M o r t g a g e P a s s - T h r o u g h C e r t i f i c a t e s , S e r i e s 2006-OPT2, u n d e r and by v i r t u e o f t h e power o f s a l e contained i n s a i d mortgage, w i l l sell at p u b l i c outcry to the highest bidder f o r cash i n f r o n t of the main entrance of the Jefferson County C o u r t h o u s e , i n B i r m i n g h a m , A l a b a m a , on J u n e 4, 2 0 0 8 , during the l e g a l hours of sale, the following d e s c r i b e d r e a l e s t a t e , s i t u a t e d i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama [ 1 ] 1 No issues in this appeal involve 2 Gerald and in Birmingham, part: FORECLOSURE the affirm. w e e k s t h e r e a f t e r , a n o t i c e was Messenger, "NOTICE OF trustee"), Background e s s e n t i a l f a c t s are undisputed. for stating, 2006-OPT2 James Ware. 1100822 "[Description of property.] "... T h i s s a l e i s made f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p a y i n g the indebtedness s e c u r e d by s a i d mortgage, as w e l l as t h e e x p e n s e o f f o r e c l o s u r e . "Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for HSI Asset Securitization Corporation 2006-0PT2 Mortgage Pass-Through C e r t i f i c a t e s , S e r i e s 2006-OPT2, T r a n s f e r e e . " (Emphasis added.) On J u n e 4, 2 0 0 8 , pertinent an i n s t r u m e n t was e x e c u t e d reading, i n part: "FORECLOSURE DEED "KNOW A L L MEN B Y THESE P R E S E N T S , T h a t w h e r e a s h e r e t o f o r e o n J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , M o n i c a S. Ware a n d spouse, Gerald James Ware, executed a certain m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y h e r e i n a f t e r d e s c r i b e d t o O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e C o r p o r a t i o n , w h i c h s a i d m o r t g a g e was r e c o r d e d i n t h e O f f i c e o f t h e J u d g e o f P r o b a t e of J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, as I n s t r u m e n t No. 200511/1622; and "WHEREAS, i n a n d b y s a i d m o r t g a g e t h e m o r t g a g e e was a u t h o r i z e d a n d e m p o w e r e d i n c a s e o f d e f a u l t i n the payment o f t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s thereby secured according t o t h e terms thereof, to sell said p r o p e r t y before t h e J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse door i n t h e C i t y of Birmingham, Alabama, a f t e r g i v i n g n o t i c e o f t h e time, p l a c e and terms o f s a i d s a l e i n some n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h e d i n s a i d c i t y b y p u b l i c a t i o n once a week f o r t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e weeks p r i o r t o s a i d s a l e a t p u b l i c outcry f o r cash t o the highest b i d d e r , and s a i d mortgage p r o v i d e d t h a t i n case o f s a l e under t h e power and a u t h o r i t y c o n t a i n e d i n same, t h e m o r t g a g e e o r a n y p e r s o n c o n d u c t i n g said s a l e f o r t h e m o r t g a g e e was a u t h o r i z e d t o e x e c u t e title to the purchaser a t s a i d s a l e ; a n d i t was 3 1100822 f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d i n and by s a i d mortgage t h a t t h e m o r t g a g e e may b i d a t t h e s a l e a n d p u r c h a s e said p r o p e r t y i f t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r t h e r e f o r ; and "WHEREAS, d e f a u l t was made i n t h e p a y m e n t o f t h e indebtedness secured by s a i d mortgage, and t h e s a i d O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e C o r p o r a t i o n d i d d e c l a r e a l l o f the indebtedness s e c u r e d b y s a i d m o r t g a g e due a n d payable a n d d i d g i v e due a n d p r o p e r n o t i c e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e of s a i d mortgage by p u b l i c a t i o n i nt h e Alabama Messenger, a newspaper published in Jefferson County, Alabama, and of general circulation i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, i n i t s i s s u e s o f May 1 7 , May 2 4 , a n d May 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 ; a n d "WHEREAS, on J u n e 4, 2 0 0 8 , t h e d a y o n w h i c h t h e f o r e c l o s u r e was d u e t o b e h e l d u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f s a i d n o t i c e , between t h e l e g a l hours o f s a l e , said f o r e c l o s u r e was d u l y a n d p r o p e r l y c o n d u c t e d , a n d O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e C o r p o r a t i o n d i d o f f e r f o r s a l e and s e l l a t p u b l i c o u t c r y i n f r o n t o f t h e J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse i n the City of Birmingham, Alabama, t h e p r o p e r t y h e r e i n a f t e r d e s c r i b e d ; and "WHEREAS, S c o t t J . H u m p h r e y was t h e a u c t i o n e e r who c o n d u c t e d s a i d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e a n d was t h e p e r s o n c o n d u c t i n g s a i d s a l e f o r t h e s a i d O p t i o n One Mortgage C o r p o r a t i o n ; and "WHEREAS, t h e h i g h e s t and best b i d f o r the property described i n the aforementioned mortgage was t h e b i d o f D e u t s c h e B a n k N a t i o n a l T r u s t C o m p a n y , as T r u s t e e f o r HSI A s s e t S e c u r i t i z a t i o n C o r p o r a t i o n 2006-OPT2 M o r t g a g e P a s s - T h r o u g h C e r t i f i c a t e s , S e r i e s 2 0 0 6 - O P T 2 , i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 4 6 5 , 3 7 5 . 0 0 , w h i c h sum o f money O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e C o r p o r a t i o n o f f e r e d t o c r e d i t on t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s s e c u r e d b y s a i d m o r t g a g e , a n d t h e s a i d O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e C o r p o r a t i o n , b y a n d t h r o u g h S c o t t J . Humphrey, as a u c t i o n e e r conducting s a i d s a l e and as a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e C o r p o r a t i o n , d o e s h e r e b y GRANT, B A R G A I N , S E L L AND CONVEY u n t o t h e s a i d D e u t s c h e B a n k N a t i o n a l Trust Company, as Trustee for HSI Asset 4 1100822 S e c u r i t i z a t i o n C o r p o r a t i o n 2006-OPT2 M o r t g a g e P a s s Through Certificates, Series 2006-OPT2, the following described property situated in Jefferson County, Alabama, t o - w i t : "SEE ATTACHED E X H I B I T 'A' "TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described p r o p e r t y t o D e u t s c h e B a n k N a t i o n a l T r u s t Company, as Trustee f o r HSI Asset Securitization Corporation 2006-OPT2 M o r t g a g e P a s s - T h r o u g h C e r t i f i c a t e s , S e r i e s 2006-OPT2, and i t s s u c c e s s o r s and a s s i g n s ; s u b j e c t , h o w e v e r , t o t h e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h o s e e n t i t l e d t o r e d e e m as p r o v i d e d by t h e laws of the S t a t e of Alabama. " I N WITNESS WHEREOF, M o n i c a S. Ware a n d G e r a l d J a m e s W a r e , a n d O p t i o n One M o r t g a g e c o r p o r a t i o n h a v e c a u s e d t h i s I n s t r u m e n t t o be e x e c u t e d b y a n d through S c o t t J . H u m p h r e y , as a u c t i o n e e r c o n d u c t i n g said s a l e and as t h e i r a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t , a n d Scott J. H u m p h r e y , as a u c t i o n e e r c o n d u c t i n g said sale, has h e r e t o s e t h i s h a n d a n d s e a l on t h i s t h e 4 t h d a y o f June, 2008." (Emphasis On to A u g u s t 29, eject 1975, added.) § the on Wares 6-6-280. possession to 2008, the t r u s t e e f i l e d from It 1, allegations, 2009, but property, claimed of the p r o p e r t y a foreclosure sale. June the by to virtue Ware f i l e d containing stating be no counterclaims. 5 pursuant to entitled to of i t s p u r c h a s e her a a complaint answer to the general denial affirmative seeking Ala. Code immediate pursuant complaint of a l l defenses or 1100822 On J u l y 9, 2 0 0 9 , t h e t r u s t e e judgment. The foreclosure deed and t h e a f f i d a v i t vice president stated that [trustee] and t h a t in motion of the s h e was regarding accompanied trustee, by verified on ... June 4, 2008, and trustee of ... hearing on September the owner t h e Wares property despite the 10, the assistant the deed. had of t h i s "[The t r u s t e e ] [ t h e Wares] that of She action" knowledge of the f a c t s s e t f o r t h mortgage o r i g i n a l l y between stated copy of Connie White, who She s t a t e d : foreclosure became] a t h e a c c o u n t made t h e b a s i s she "ha[d] p e r s o n a l of a m o t i o n f o r a summary " i n c h a r g e o f t h e books and r e c o r d s o f t h e [the] a f f i d a v i t . " virtue was filed of ... real "failed and refused summary-judgment was by certain One], [the property." demands motion that [Option the [the trustee's] avers that She to vacate t o do the so." scheduled A for 2009. On S e p t e m b e r 8, 2 0 0 9 , W a r e ' s c o u n s e l r e q u e s t e d a d d i t i o n a l time i n w h i c h t o r e s p o n d t o t h e summary-judgment filed an a f f i d a v i t Rule 5 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. court s t a t i n g the reasons f o r the request. C i v . P. stayed the hearing Meanwhile, answer asserting on motion On September 10, 2009, the and See trial on t h e 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 . September 9, counterclaims. 6 2009, Ware The trustee filed an moved t o amended strike 1100822 the counterclaims, t h e y were b a r r e d 17, 2009, the c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e y were u n t i m e l y by the trial statute court limitations. granted stating: "After hearing the reviewing the pleadings, the counterclaims are by Accordingly, [Ware's] barred of oral the amended that November trustee's the On motion, arguments court and finds statute pleadings of counsel that of and [Ware's] limitations. are due to be stricken." On January 12, 2010, summary-judgment m o t i o n . Ware Her filed response a response included a to "narrative statement of m a t e r i a l f a c t s , " which s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t "4. The d e m a n d f o r Plaintiff, [trustee]. possession ... was made part: by "5. However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a c t u a l p u b l i c a t i o n in the Alabama Messenger of the notice of f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e , ... [ t h e t r u s t e e ] was the entity t h a t was going to conduct the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on J u n e 4, 2 0 0 8 . ... at "6. The r e c o r d o w n e r o f t h e m o r t g a g e a n d L e n d e r t h e t i m e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was O p t i o n One. "7. P a r a g r a p h 21 o f t h e m o r t g a g e d a t e d J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , b e t w e e n O p t i o n One and t h e [Wares] provides t h a t i n t h e e v e n t ... t h e L e n d e r i n v o k e s t h e p o w e r o f s a l e due t o d e f a u l t , ' L e n d e r [ e m p h a s i s i n W a r e ' s response] s h a l l p u b l i s h the n o t i c e of s a l e ' "8. C l e a r l y t h e n o t i c e o f f o r e c l o s u r e was not p u b l i s h e d b y O p t i o n One, t h e r e c o r d o w n e r a n d L e n d e r a t t h e t i m e t h e p o w e r o f s a l e was i n v o k e d a n d n o t i c e 7 the 1100822 published Instead, i t was published by [the trustee]." (Emphasis that added "a sale except under conducted "'[a]ll the in strict and that contained article, § be 35-10-9.) Option One, otherwise power in sales of ... null she publish mortgage estate, contrary ... of made Agreement" also ("the Securitization Certificates, to the PSA"), which "because notice," for a summary acquisition created 2006-0PT2 S e r i e s 2006-OPT2 the foreclosure judgment, of her p r o p e r t y 22, 2010, s a l e was the t r i a l court therefore entered trustee. 8 powers this Ware Lender, sale the was invalid. Servicing HSI Asset Pass-Through In her response argued through the that the foreclosure and she c o n t e n d e d void. 1975, mortgage and be power" of the Mortgage ("the t r u s t " ) . d e e d v i o l a t e d c e r t a i n t e r m s o f t h e PSA, the the ( Q u o t i n g A l a . Code a copy of the " P o o l i n g Corporation motion purported filed must under breached, which breach rendered the f o r e c l o s u r e Ware h a d asserted to the p r o v i s i o n s argued, the Ware the terms and v o i d . ' " Therefore, d i d not real noted.) a compliance with i n mortgages shall as that H o w e v e r , on J a n u a r y a summary j u d g m e n t f o r the 1100822 Ware then judgment ruled filed a motion and r e q u e s t e d to alter, a hearing. amend, The trial on W a r e ' s m o t i o n n o r h e l d a h e a r i n g , deemed d e n i e d appealed. propriety by o p e r a t i o n of Rule On 2 Ware and challenges (3) t h e t r i a l on h e r m o t i o n t o a l t e r , II. In and t h e m o t i o n (2) t h e o r d e r court's t o one v e r y simple of her question: ' d i d the [trustee] This case w i l l rise and f a l l t o t h e summary A. Ware summary "[t]he judgment. trial The appeal. 2 challenges first address Summary was the the arguments Judgment the timing and t h e m e r i t s f o r the timing, e r r e d when i t i g n o r e d W a r e ' s judgment ... judgment. both As upon t h e [ t r u s t e e ' s ] h a v i n g T h u s , we Ware counterclaims t o f o r e c l o s e upon t h e [Wares'] p r o p e r t y ? ' directed a Discussion the right to foreclose." and the judgment. have [right] Ware to hold o b j e c t i n g to the d i s m i s s a l of her counterclaims, down was s t r i k i n g her refusal amend, o r v a c a t e the neither (1) t h e t i m i n g c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e i s s u e as t o t h e m e r i t s "boils court 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t , counterclaims, hearing appeal, or vacate stayed pending 9 Ware contends [Rule] the of the that 56(f)[, A l a . outcome of the 1100822 R. Civ. P.,] filing and granted summary judgment d i s c o v e r y c o u l d be c o n d u c t e d a n d c o m p l e t e d . " before Ware's b r i e f , at 64. " R u l e 5 6 ( f ) a l l o w s a p a r t y o p p o s i n g a summaryj u d g m e n t m o t i o n t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t a l e r t i n g t h e t r i a l court that i t i s p r e s e n t l y unable to present 'facts e s s e n t i a l to j u s t i f y the p a r t y ' s opposition.' The C o m m i t t e e Comments t o A u g u s t 1, 1 9 9 2 , A m e n d m e n t t o R u l e 5 6 ( c ) a n d R u l e 5 6 ( f ) s t a t e t h a t ' [ s ] u c h an affidavit should state with specificity why the opposing evidence i s not p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e and should state, as s p e c i f i c a l l y as p o s s i b l e , what future actions are contemplated to discover and present the opposing evidence.' The d i s p o s i t i o n o f a request made pursuant to Rule 56(f) is d i s c r e t i o n a r y with the t r i a l court." S c r u s h y v. Tucker, Following trial court Ware's stayed judgment motion. 15, 2010, did n o t renew responded 955 2d Rule 56(f) On date filing the on trustee's d i s c r e p a n c y between to the motion discovery case, summary- the court set January requests. time. Thus, 10 Ware I n s t e a d , she motion o f t h e PSA on the and (2) t h e and t h e deed. the notice the merits, the the between her Rule on this summary-judgment (1) t h e p r o v i s i o n s four-month i n t e r v a l in t h e h e a r i n g on her request f o r a d d i t i o n a l alleged written ( A l a . 2006). f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n . relying response 1007 D e c e m b e r 8, 2 0 0 9 , merits, the 988, indefinitely a s t h e new to So. During 56(f) f i l i n g and h e r she there d i d not serve was discovery no any 1100822 pending when motion. the Moreover, further materials she does not of the on As Ware she that the for that the ruled does not on the inform she has For trial summary-judgment this needed to b o l s t e r her allege that case. been p r e j u d i c e d these reasons, court exceeded Court she of Put by the has what simply, timing failed to i t s discretion in s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n when i t d i d . the contends t h a t the and court summary j u d g m e n t . demonstrate ruling trial merits of trustee the summary judgment, Ware f a i l e d to c a r r y i t s t h r e s h o l d a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was therefore first burden inappropriate. " ' " ' [ T ] h e manner i n w h i c h the [summary-judgment] movant's burden of p r o d u c t i o n i s met depends upon w h i c h p a r t y h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f ... a t t r i a l . ' " ' D e n m a r k v . M e r c a n t i l e S t o r e s Co., 844 So. 2d 1189, 1195 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 769 So. 2d 9 0 3 , 909 (Ala. 1999), quoting i n t u r n B e r n e r v . C a l d w e l l , 543 So. 2d 686, 691 (Ala. 1989) (Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ) . I f the movant i s the p l a i n t i f f w i t h the u l t i m a t e b u r d e n of proof, h i s ' " p r o o f m u s t be s u c h t h a t he w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t [now r e f e r r e d t o as a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , s e e R u l e 50, A l a . R. C i v . P.] i f t h i s e v i d e n c e was not c o n t r o v e r t e d at trial."' Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s , 769 So. 2d a t 909 ( q u o t i n g B e r n e r , 543 So. 2d a t 68 8 ) . "'The first prerequisite for [a summary j u d g m e n t ] i n f a v o r o f a m o v a n t who a s s e r t s a c l a i m ... i s t h a t t h e c l a i m ... be v a l i d i n l e g a l t h e o r y , i f i t s v a l i d i t y be c h a l l e n g e d . See D r i v e r v . N a t i o n a l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co 658 So. 2d 390 (Ala. 11 1100822 1995). The second p r e r e q u i s i t e for [a summary judgment] in favor of such a m o v a n t , who n e c e s s a r i l y b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f proof, American Furniture Galleries v. McWane, I n c 4 7 7 So. 2d 369 ( A l a . 1 985), M c K e r l e y v. E t o w a h - D e K a l b - C h e r o k e e M e n t a l H e a l t h B o a r d , I n c 6 8 6 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and Oliver v. Hayes I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o r p . , 456 So. 2d 802 (Ala. C i v . App. 1984), i s that each contested e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m ... be s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . See Driver, supra, and McKerley, supra. The third p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r [a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t ] i n f a v o r of such a movant i s t h a t the record be d e v o i d o f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r e b u t t i n g the movant's e v i d e n c e on any essential element of the claim .... See Driver, s u p r a , a n d F i r s t F i n . I n s . Co. v . T i l l e r y , 626 So. 2d 1252 (Ala. 1993). Substantial r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e w o u l d c r e a t e an i s s u e o f f a c t t o be t r i e d b y t h e f i n d e r o f f a c t a n d therefore would preclude [a summary judgment] . See D r i v e r , s u p r a , and First Financial, supra. [Summary j u d g m e n t ] in f a v o r o f t h e p a r t y who a s s e r t s the claim ... i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e u n l e s s a l l t h r e e o f t h e s e p r e r e q u i s i t e s c o e x i s t . See Driver, supra, and First Financial, supra, M c K e r l e y , s u p r a , and O l i v e r , s u p r a . ' " Ross v. Rosen-Rager, , ( A l a . 2010) 1143 (Ala. 2003)). PSA, as and the judgment well as deed, for on [Ms. (quoting Ex Ware r e l i e s the arguing the 1 0 8 0 7 2 1 , A u g u s t 27, alleged that parte on 2010] H e l m s , 873 So. So. 2d certain provisions d i s c r e p a n c y between the these trustee. 12 matters preclude a 3d 1139, of the notice summary 1100822 1. PSA According trust," which converted be t o Ware, "pooled and sold securitization," and e v e r y potential mortgages by whereby mortgage investors -- parties a the "underlying held by York into common l a w a process trust and as notes of serve as [a] Ware's b r i e f , at 58. t o t h e P S A , w h i c h was d a t e d to that known promissory [the] t r u s t income s t r e a m f o r i n v e s t o r s . " According the numerous i s a "New [ t h e m ] i n t o m o r t g a g e - b a c k e d s e c u r i t i e s ... t h a t c a n bought each the trust February 3 1, 2 0 0 6 , agreement a r e : "HSI A S S E T S E C U R I T I Z A T I O N CORPORATION, a s d e p o s i t o r ( t h e ' D e p o s i t o r ' ) , OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California Corporation, as o r i g i n a t o r ( i n such c a p a c i t y , t h e ' O r i g i n a t o r ' ) and s e r v i c e r ( i n such c a p a c i t y , t h e ' S e r v i c e r ' ) , WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. a n a t i o n a l b a n k i n g a s s o c i a t i o n , as m a s t e r s e r v i c e r ( i n s u c h c a p a c i t y , t h e ' M a s t e r S e r v i c e r ' ) as s e c u r i t i e s administrator ( i n such c a p a c i t y , the 'Securities Administrator') and as c u s t o d i a n ( i n such c a p a c i t y , 'the C u s t o d i a n ' ) , a n d DEUTSCHE BANK N A T I O N A L TRUST COMPANY, a n a t i o n a l b a n k i n g a s s o c i a t i o n , a s t r u s t e e (the 'Trustee')." Ware c o n t e n d s t h a t v a r i o u s acquisition that of her property the purported o f t h e PSA p r e c l u d e the by t h e t r u s t and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , acquisition i s invalid. S p e c i f i c a l l y , she For the purposes d e f i n i t i o n as a c c u r a t e . 3 provisions of this 13 appeal, we accept this 1100822 construes assets t h e PSA a s r e q u i r i n g b y no l a t e r than F e b r u a r y 28, 2006, t h a t she argues deed that dated permissible there 4, a f t e r the " c l o s i n g date" i s , on o r b e f o r e 2008, May 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . of Thus, a c q u i s i t i o n of the foreclosure was acquisitions. i s a question acquired 90 d a y s the purported June the a c q u i s i t i o n of a l l t r u s t At outside the the very parameters least, she of insists, o f f a c t a s t o when -- o r i f -- t h e t r u s t e e an a s s i g n m e n t of the mortgage w i t h i n the prescribed period. However, standing" neither the trustee argues to invoke the provisions a party Trustee's brief, nor a t h i r d a t 38-39. that "Ware does not have o f t h e PSA, b e c a u s e " s h e i s party beneficiary Indeed, Ware o f t h e PSA." i s neither a party t o t h e PSA n o r a " c e r t i f i c a t e h o l d e r . " S e e P S A , § 2.02 (assets are of a l l held present " i ntrust f o r the exclusive and f u t u r e C e r t i f i c a t e h o l d e r s " ) . Ware d o e s n o t r e s p o n d any authority party use and b e n e f i t t o , nor standing to this f o r the proposition an to enforce intended argument and f a i l s that beneficiary o n e who of, a to cite i s neither contract i t s provisions. " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., r e q u i r e s t h a t arguments i n an appellant's ... brief contain 'citations to the cases, statutes, other 14 a has 1100822 a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e The effect of a failure to 28(a)(10) i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d : record r e l i e d comply with on.' Rule " ' I t i s s e t t l e d t h a t a f a i l u r e to comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 28(a)([10]) requiring citation of authority for arguments p r o v i d e s the Court w i t h a b a s i s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g those arguments: "'"When an appellant fails to cite any authority for an a r g u m e n t on a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e , this Court may affirm the j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t i s s u e , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t ' s duty nor its function to perform an appellant's legal research. Rule 2 8(a)([10]); Spradlin v. B i r m i n g h a m A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y , 613 So. 2d 347 (Ala. 1993)." " ' C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. B u s i n e s s Realty I n v . C o 7 2 2 So. 2d 7 4 7 , 752 (Ala. 1998). See a l s o M c L e m o r e v . F l e m i n g , 604 So. 2d 353 (Ala. 1992); Stover v. A l a b a m a Farm Bureau Ins. Co ., 4 67 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 1 9 8 5 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 So. 2d 92 (Ala. 1985).'" University 2d So. 1242, 2d further of S o u t h A l a b a m a v. 1247-48 277, 281 (Ala. 2004) (Ala. 2001)). d i s c u s s i o n of the Progressive (quoting For Discrepancy parte Co., 904 So. Showers, 812 t h e s e r e a s o n s , we pretermit e f f e c t of a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of PSA. 2. Ex Ins. Between N o t i c e and 15 Deed the 1100822 Ware also contends that inappropriate b e c a u s e , she was by presented deed. the to post claiming t o be the it was trustee being combination issue had power to the a t 24. Option foreclose"; 57 that issue between of m a t e r i a l fact the of t h e m o r t g a g e by assignment, while on to the and conduct the deed. She right the insists the deed presents note and a foreclosure to bring (footnote the would s a l e was an requirement in when i t f a i l e d invalid; sale." action In this entity correct entity the m o r t g a g e and at and who the who was was [Ala. the to Code 16 and current who brief, argument goes, authority to have Ware's b r i e f , she at also follow 1975, information c o n d u c t i n g the 54. disputed t r u s t e e d i d not connection, failed a the Ware's the in ejectment. to list the the that mortgage have and with the Ware's b r i e f , longer accordance name o f ... no omitted). "foreclosing sale with owned t h e who conduct One the sale purported the and foreclosure the i t was notice upcoming of that was that notice to an judgment trustee grantee "as summary " I f t h e p u b l i c a t i o n i s c o r r e c t , " so h e r "then the that the factual says notice the of she holder O p t i o n One insists, incongruence Specifically, purported the argues the notice § 35-1-8,] regarding holder or owner foreclosure the of sale." 1100822 However, appeal . trial these In fact, court, Ware arguments rather a r e made f o r t h e f i r s t than urging conceded i n h e r response m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t h a t record owner of t h e mortgage at the time (Emphasis added.) in that t h e a b s e n c e o f an i s s u e of t h e mortgage "It i s w e l l known t h a t the trial for the f i r s t PRS court was of fact as t o t h e owner of foreclosure. 'we c a n n o t r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f 998 So. 2d v. State Farm Fire that W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v. 1042 , 1057 ( A l a . 2008) (quoting & C a s . C o . , 928 S o . 2 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 5 s e a r c h e d Ware's b r i e f s she a c t u a l l y the foreclosure foreclosure was n o t i c e d Heilman, made been made was " n u l l b y ... of the mortgage[,] therefore, not of foreclosure 2005)). argument owner to the trustee's b a s e d o n a n a r g u m e n t n o t made b e l o w a n d u r g e d M o r e o v e r , we h a v e that i n the I n o t h e r words, she conceded t i m e on a p p e a l . ' " I I , LLC, Singleton (Ala. a t the time position on " i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e O p t i o n One." court this time waived. i n the t r i a l and v o i d Option One." See A v i s appeal i s abandoned 17 Rent court, [simply] [thetrustee] 876 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 4 n.8 on i n vain than the argument h a s , A Car Sys., I n c . v. ( A l a . 2003) or namely, because the rather That f o r the waived. ("An argument Bettis v. 1100822 Thornton, in So. the 2d 662 So. 2d appellant's 470, 473 Ware a l s o 256, 257 ( A l a . 1 995). brief are waived.' (Ala. contends that the trustee summary-judgment affidavit o f C o n n i e W h i t e , w h i c h was burden in s u p p o r t of i t s m o t i o n , d i d not R. Civ. challenge in this a P a r d u e v. not argued Potter, 632 1994)."). threshold P., 'Issues number affidavit of because, she presented to carry i t s insists, by the trial However, she did court. "Concerning affidavits and exhibits offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for a summary j u d g m e n t , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : "'Rule 56(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., generally requires that "[s]worn or c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s " of documents r e f e r r e d to in an affidavit offered supporting or o p p o s i n g 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 be a t t a c h e d to the a f f i d a v i t . H o w e v e r , i f an a f f i d a v i t o r t h e d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d t o an a f f i d a v i t f a i l to comply w i t h t h i s rule, the opposing party must object to the admissibility of the affidavit or the d o c u m e n t a n d move t o s t r i k e . Ex p a r t e E l b a Gen. H o s p . & N u r s i n g Home, I n c . , 828 So. 2d 308, 312-13 ( A l a . 2001) (noting that a p a r t y must o b j e c t t o e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t h a t does not comply w i t h R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P . ) ; C h a t h a m v . CSX T r a n s p . , I n c . , 613 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 , 344 ( A l a . 1993) ("A party m u s t move t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s t r i k e any nonadmissible evidence that v i o l a t e s Rule 56(e). Failure to do so waives any 18 the trustee comply w i t h Rule 56(e), respects. i n the failed Ala. not 1100822 o b j e c t i o n on a p p e a l a n d a l l o w s t h i s C o u r t to c o n s i d e r the d e f e c t i v e evidence.").'" SSC Selma Operating 2010) (emphasis Cato, 968 move to So. Co. added) 2d 1, strike factual f o r the "Actions action in ejectment December ejectment allegations the and -- thereto, the 1975). the White's 598, Homes, Because in the or 2010] actions by § the nature 6-6-280[, 3d , purported to supply affidavit fails of the burden premises designating affidavit the or has t h e r e u p o n and unlawfully and reasons 19 -- of "'that the legal them, stated Code documentation Ware's c h a l l e n g e above. and withholds § 6-6-280(b), A l a . accompanying an 2010). consists describing (quoting of [Ms. or t h i s e v i d e n c e , and f o r the she Code s u b s t a n t i a l evidence Id. not Ala. (Ala. supported same.'" v. Ass'n, Mortgage threshold properly L.L.C. court, plaintiff's possessed (Ala. Ware d i d trial in Nat'l So. by 602 judgment. Federal defendant entered detains 3d a ground f o r c h a l l e n g i n g governed v. 3, p l a i n t i f f was title that are So. 2007)). a p p e a l as summary 56 Elizabeth affidavit ejectment Steele 1091441, An i t on in 1975] (Ala. White's to Gordon, (quoting 4-5 cannot object basis v. to the 1100822 B. Because summary the this judgment entitled to a counterclaims. disposing case Counterclaims concededly -- which reversal turns of order the trial of Ware's c o u n t e r c l a i m s Finally, Absence of -- the Consequently, C. the affirm we on i s also a propriety Ware pursuant parties words, the Inc. v. the R. Rule 59(e) have had "when trial As by to Ala. Civ. "shall opportunity a hearing court P., court's trial erred in f a i l i n g provides not t o be i s requested be that ruled heard upon to 823 So. 2d 1252, t h i s Court has o f t e n s t a t e d , however, e r r o r absence a hearing i s not a hearing." (Ala. filed until In Rule not of granting motions thereon." pursuant the other 59(g), 2001). always Unicare, occasioned reversible: "'"Harmless e r r o r occurs, w i t h i n the context of a R u l e 5 9 ( g ) m o t i o n , w h e r e t h e r e i s e i t h e r no p r o b a b l e m e r i t i n the grounds a s s e r t e d i n the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues p r e s e n t e d t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , a d v e r s e l y t o t h e m o v a n t , b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same o b j e c t i v e standard of review as t h a t a p p l i e d i n t h e trial court."'" 20 to requested. in 1253 order affirmed. errs Hood, her Hearing Ware c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e 59(g), not striking c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a s s h e Rule is of 1100822 H o l l a n d e r v. N i c h o l s , Kitchens quoting v. i n turn 1989)). Nor arguments court. 763 As 623 3d 1 8 4 , So. 2d i s R u l e 59 t o be or theories F.2d 197 1082, ( A l a . 2009) 1088-89 G r e e n e v . T h o m p s o n , 554 American Inc., for Maye, 19 So. not a vehicle previously Home A s s u r . Co. 1237, explained 1239 So. v. (Ala. 2d 376, by w h i c h asserted Glenn (quoting 1993), 381 ( A l a . to r a i s e i n the Estess new trial & Assocs., (11th C i r . 1985). in this opinion, r e v i e w on t h e m e r i t s . Ware h a s p r e s e n t e d n o t h i n g A remand f o r p u r p o s e s of R u l e 59(g) w o u l d s e r v e no p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t o a f f o r d h e r "a s e c o n d bite at this the case, apple." we Thus, i n the deem t h e t r i a l Ware's R u l e 59(e) court's failure t o be harmless failed not we to hold find error. motion III. In posture i n which a hearing on Conclusion c o n c l u s i o n , Ware h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e trustee to and carry i t s initial rebutted Consequently, the the summary-judgment evidence trial produced court's by judgment burden the is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Cobb, C . J . , Murdock, and Bolin and Main, J . , concurs i n the 21 J J . , concur. result. has trustee. due to be
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.
