Dabney et al v. Bank of America NA et al, No. 2:2019cv03225 - Document 29 (D.S.C. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER - Bankruptcy Appeal re 1 Bankruptcy Appeal filed by Kathryn Harrelle Dabney, Frank Scott Dabney. The Court finds no basis to reverse the Bankruptcy Court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Bankruptcy Court's order dated October 25, 2019, which granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/23/2021. (vdru, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dabney et al v. Bank2:19-cv-03225-BHH of America NA et al Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 1 of 14 Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION In re: Frank Scott Dabney and Kathryn Harrelle Dabney, ) ) ) Debtors, ) ________________________________ ) Frank Scott Dabney and Kathryn ) Harrelle Dabney, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) Bank of America, N.A.; Specialized ) Loan Servicing, LLC; Shellpoint ) Mortgage Servicing; and The Bank ) of New York Mellon, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ________________________________) Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-3225-BHH ORDER In this action, Plaintiffs-Appellants Frank Scott Dabney and Kathryn Handle Dabney der of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina, which judgment. Defendants-Appellees are Bank of America, N.A. below, the Court affirms the Bankruptcy Cour summary judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs initially filed a complaint against Defendants on March 30, 2017, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina, raising claims arising out Dockets.Justia.com 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 2 of 14 of an alleged discrepancy between the interest rate provision contained in an adjustable simultaneously executed by Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Note does not provide for an adjustable interest rate floor while the Rider does provide for an adjustable interest rate floor of 8.00%. In November of 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted Bank judgment as a matter of law, finding that the Note and Rider should be read as a single, unified transaction to provide for the adjustable rate floor of 8.00%. The Dabneys appealed this Court, and the Honorable Richard M. Gergel found that ogether as a whole, are capable of being understood as Dabney v. Bank of Am., No. 2:17-3151-RMG, 2018 WL 3306896, *5 (D.S.C. July 3, 2018). Thus, Judge Gergel found the loan documents ambiguous and noted that parol evidence might resolve the ambiguity. Id. Judge Gergel therefore vacat judgment as a matter of law in favor of Bank of America and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Id. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court allowed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on January 15, 2019, which raised new claims. The court also allowed the parties the opportunity for discovery. The parties completed discovery on June 5, 2019, and Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on July 25, 2019, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and denied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a written order filed on October 25, 2019. Also, in a written order filed on August 13, 2019, 2 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 3 of 14 extend the time for discovery, finding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate diligence during the discovery period that constitutes good cause for an extension under Rule 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs filed the instant appeal on November 14, 2019. In their appellate brief, Plaintiffs assert that the Bankruptcy Court committed reversible erro address the forged note submitted by and relied upon by the Appell allow the Dabneys to amend their complaint and further investigate the forgery their 3002.1, and the South Carolina Unfair See ECF No. 9 at 2-3, 15-35.) STANDARDS OF REVIEW I. Bankruptcy Appeals This court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders of the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 158; see, e.g., In re Kirkland, 600 F.3d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting the bankruptcy appeal by a district court is the same as when a court of appeals reviews a district court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2). Accord R. Bankr. P. 8013. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the entire record demonstrates convincingly to United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456,462 (4th Cir. 2012). A w are subject to de novo review. In re Biondo, 180 3 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 4 of 14 F.3d 126, 130 (4th Cir. 1999); In re K & L Lakeland, Inc., 128 F.3d 203, 206 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, a district court reviews the Bankrupt under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure II. Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court shall grant summary judgment if a party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The judge is not to weigh the evidence, but rather to determine if there is a genuine issue of fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). If no material factual disputes remain, then summary judgment should be granted against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which the party bears the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1990). III. Motions to Amend When a movant seeks to amend his pleading after the scheduling order deadline for doing so has passed, courts conduct a two-step analysis. Dilmar Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C.), Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 1997). First, a court considers whether the movant can cation of the scheduling deadline under Rule 16(b). Id. (emphasis in original). If the mov standard, then a court considers whether the movant can satisfy the requirements for amendment under Rule 15(a). Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 902 F.Supp. 719, 720 4 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 5 of 14 (S.D.W.V. 1995); Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250-254 (S.D.W.V. 1995); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85-86 (M.D.N.C. 1987); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure assures the Court and the parties Jordan v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 867 F.Supp. 1238, 1250 (D.S.C. 1994) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610). andard is much different than the more lenient standard contained in Rule 15(a). Rule 16(b) does not focus on the bad faith of the movant or the prejudice to the opposing party; rather, it focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify the scheduling order to permit the proposed amendment. Smith, 902 F.Supp. at 720; Marcum, 163 F.R.D. at 254; Forstmann, 114 F.R.D. at 85; Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pr freely give leave [to amend] when justice so Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). A motion to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a) r altering the pleadi Id. eave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)) (emphasis in original). To deny a motion to amend for futility, the amendment mu Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F. Supp. 2d at 819. 5 2:19-cv-03225-BHH IV. Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 6 of 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) Rule 56(d) provides the following: When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain evidence or declarations or take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). DISCUSSION As an initial matter, the Court finds that oral argument is not necessary for this appeal, and the Court decides this case based briefs, the record on appeal, and the applicable law. the Dabneys to Amend their Complaint The Dabneys allege that they discovered the existence of two separate adjustable rate notes for the same loan (a 3% note and a 1% note, with the latter alleged to be forgery) while reviewing discovery on or about May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 9 at 16.) The Dabneys assert that there is overwhelming evidence that the 1% note is a forgery and that Defendants have not controverted this evidence. The Dabneys further assert that they raised the issue before the Bankruptcy Court by moving for additional time for discovery and by setting forth the discrepancies between the two notes in thei response to the their motion for additional time. According to the Dabneys, the Bankruptcy Court erred by refusing to hold Defendants in contempt for the alleged forgery. The 6 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 7 of 14 Dabneys also contend that the existence of two notes and one paper-clipped allonge creates a genuine issue of material fact r decision. Related to the aforementioned arguments, the Dabneys assert that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion when it failed to allow the Dabneys to amend their complaint. After review, the Court is not persuaded by as the Bankruptcy Court proper Complaint in this proceeding assert a forgery of the Note or violation of any statute or rule at 19.) The Bankruptcy Court specifically did not discover the alleged forgery until after 2019, but the Bankruptcy Court noted that, iled a motion to amend the Amended Complaint to include allegations regarding the forgery of the Note, and merely included what purports to be a request for amendment in an affidavit objection to the Motions and as a footnote in their proposed 1 (Id.) As the Bankruptcy Court also properly Motions by reference to unalleged theories and claims because asserting new claims in a brief submitted in opposition to a motion for (Id. at 19.) On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that counsel did make an oral motion to amend their 1 In its order, the Bankruptcy Court also explained Amended Complaint prior to the hearing on the Motions, and they have not offered any justification for failing 7 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 8 of 14 pleadings to conform to the evidence at the July 2019 summary judgment hearing. However, the Bankruptcy Court previously acknowledged this argument by noting: alluded to a motion to amend the Complaint during the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, but he did not make an express motion and the Court indicated that it would not hear arguments on a motion to n.10 (emphasis added).) Indeed, after the C Id. at 18, of the transcript of the July 2019 hearing, the Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Cour only alluded to a motion to amend but did not make an express motion, as he simply would See, e.g., I would argue we have not and, if we have, of course I would make a motion to amend our complaint, to conform with the evidence, because this is evidence that only arrived in the past couple of months. So I would South Carolina law regarding actions with respect to a negotiable instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless Id. (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 36-3-308.) Thus, the Court finds no error in the Bankruptcy never denied the authenticity of their signatures in their pleadings (or during their depositions), Plaintiffs are deemed to have admitted the authenticity of the signatures. Ultimately, the Court finds no error in the Bankruptcy C Dabneys were precluded from relying on un-a motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the Court finds no error in the Bankruptcy 8 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 9 of 14 timely move to amend their complaint. In addition, the Court notes that the July 2019 hearing was sufficient to be considered an express motion to amend, the Bankruptcy Court would not have abused its discretion in denying the motion. The tion to extend deadlines, finding that the Dabneys failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested extension. (See ECF No. 81.) This Court finds no error in the Additionally, in its order granting summary judgment, the Bankruptcy Court found that Plaintiffs offered no justification, let alone good cause, for failing to seek leave to amend prior to the July 2019 hearing. (ECF No. 1 at 19.) This Court likewise finds no error nt and further finds no evidence of good cause to support a motion to amend that would have been untimely under the scheduling order. 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not commit reversible error by refusing to address the alleged forged note or refusing to allow the Dabneys to amend their complaint and further investigate the alleged forged note. Next, the Dabneys assert that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in denying their motion for relief pursuant to Rule 56(d). After review, the Court finds no merit to the First, the Dabneys did not file a specific motion for relief under Rule 56(d); rather, 2 Moreover, the Court notes that the proposed amendment would have been futile in light of the ly requires an 8% interest rate floor. (See ECF No. 1 from 8% for the duration of the loan and no adjustments up or down have been made, whether the interest rate would change 1% or 3%, if it ever changed, is of no 9 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 10 of 14 believe that the issue of the conflicting notes requires further discovery and would ask this Court to provide appropriate relief under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civ Next, the Bankruptcy Court previously deadlines in an order filed August 13, 2019, and the Dabneys have not appealed that ruling. In the August order, the Bankruptcy Court explained that it ll lack of diligence in utilizing discovery mechanisms to timely complete discovery according to the Scheduling Order and failure to satisfactorily explain why the discovery could not have been met with their diligent effo 41.) After review, the Court finds no error, let alone reversible error, in the Bankruptcy evidence, changed circumstances, or other reason justifying relief since the hearing on the previous Motion for an extension Id.) On appeal, the Dabneys assert that the Bankruptcy Court erred in dismissing their causes of action under TILA, Rule 3002.1, and SCUTPA. The Dabneys first argue that the Bankruptcy Court erred by failing to consider the alleged forged note and by using that failure as a basis for dismissing Plaintiffs ignoring the forgery issue, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an interest rate floor. arguments. As explained above, the 10 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 11 of 14 Court does not find any error in the Bankrupt fusal to allow the Dabneys to amend their amended complaint. Moreover, the Court notes that this case was previously remanded for the Bankruptcy Court to consider parol evidence, but on remand, Plaintiffs did not offer any parol evidence to show that the loan documents do not contain an interest rate floor. (See ECF No. 1 at 18.) After review, the Cour the absence of any parol evidence indicating a contrary intent of the Rider, which were executed on the same day, should be read as one unified document, giving effect to all provisions. Thus, the Court also finds no error, let alone reversible error, interest rate provisions in the APR expand and clarify the interest rate provisions contained in the Note, such that the maximum interest rate chargeable under the Loan documents is 14%, and the minimum interest rate chargeable under the Loan doc Id. that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the existence of an interest rate floor is without merit. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs assert that the Bankruptcy Court erred in its alternative bases for granting these arguments without merit, as explained in greater detail below. A. Truth In Lending Act Plaintiffs assert that the limitations period for their TILA claim (and other claims) was tolled pursuant to the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. However, the Bankruptcy Court specifically considered this argument and found that there is nothing in the record to indicate that Plaintiffs were prevented from discovering any alleged TILA violation as a 11 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 12 of 14 result of fraudulent concealment by Defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 23.) The Court agrees. As an additional matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs do not allege fraudulent concealment in their Amended Complaint, which is required under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. briefs, the evidence of record, and the applicable law, the Court finds no error in t Defendants did not originate the loan and are not liable as assignees for TILA violations under 15 U.S.C. § 1641; (2) Plaint at closing is barred by the statute of limitations; (3) Plaintiffs are not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on the basis of fraudulent concealment; (4) any claims based on notices sent prior to May 30, 2016, are time-barred; and (5) the post-2016 notices included the information required by statute. Thus, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court properly granted summary judgm B. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 The Bankruptcy Court held that the Dabneys were not entitled to relief under Rule theory that the interest rate for the loan should have been lower than 8% and their theory that the 1% note was forged and not cted as previously explained. The Bankruptcy Court also observed that Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement on amount of the regular monthly payments to be paid on the Loan and made such payments throughout the course of their bankruptcy case without objection, and ultimately benefitted by the curing of their default and maintenance of payments on the Loan and by avoiding the sale of their home in the state 12 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 13 of 14 On appeal, the Dabneys argue that the August 2014 settlement order does not prohibit their Rule 3002.1 claim, or any other claim. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the reservation of rights language contained in the chapter 13 plan is sufficient to preserve their rights to pursue pre-confirmation causes of action, citing In re Russo-Chestnut, 522 B.R. 148, n. 10 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014), in support. As Defendants point out in their br In re Russo-Chestnut is misplaced because that case holds that a debtor can reserve certain pre-confirmation claims in its chapter 13 plan with certain form language. Here, the 3002.1 claims are based on allegations that Defendants failed to file payment change notices after the proof of claim for the loan was filed in February of 2014. Thus, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court properly determined that the Dabneys are not entitled to relief under Rule 3002.1. C. South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the Dabneys offered no evidence that any of t the public interest. The Dabneys assert on appeal that interest, claiming that Countrywide Home Loans, predecessor of BANA, engaged in severe and systemic fraud and that the standard nature of the loan forms is sufficient to originating, servicing, and collecting this loan affects the public interest. The Court finds ry and unsupported be evidence in the record, 13 2:19-cv-03225-BHH Date Filed 03/23/21 Entry Number 29 Page 14 of 14 and the Court thus finds that the Bankruptcy Court properly granted summary judgment in CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no judgment. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy h granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, is hereby AFFIRMED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge March 23, 2021 Charleston, South Carolina 14
]]>
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.
