You v JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

7/30/2019 You v JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

1/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF GEORGI A

ATLANTA DI VI SI ON

CHAE YI YOU and CHUR K. BAK,

Pl ai nt i f f s,CI VI L ACTI ON NO.

v. 1: 12- cv- 202- J EC- AJ B

J PMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A. , andFEDERAL NATI ONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCI ATI ON,

Def endants.

ORDER AND OPINION

Thi s act i on i s bef or e t he Cour t on t he Magi st r at e J udge s Repor t

and Recommendat i on ( R&R) [ 12] gr ant i ng def endant s Mot i on t o

Di smi ss [ 2] . Pl ai nt i f f s have not submi t t ed any obj ect i ons t o t he

R&R. The Cour t has r evi ewed t he r ecord and t he argument s of t he

par t i es and, f or t he f or egoi ng r easons, ACCEPTS t he Magi st r at e

J udge s r ecommendat i ons and GRANTS t he mot i on [ 2] as t o pl ai nt i f f s

r equest f or decl ar at or y r el i ef and t hei r cl ai ms f or wr ongf ul

f or ecl osur e and evi ct i on based on al l egat i ons t hat : ( 1) t he Secur i t y

Deed at i ssue i n t he case i s i nval i d, and ( 2) def endant J PMor gan

Chase Bank, N. A. ( Chase) does not have an enf orceabl e i nt er est i n

t he Deed.

As t o t he cl ai ms f or wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e and evi ct i on based on

an argument t hat ( 1) Chase was not aut hor i zed t o f orecl ose and ( 2)


2/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

2

di d not pr ovi de adequat e not i ce of f or ecl osur e, t he Cour t DENIES t he

mot i on [ 2] without prejudice and STAYS t hi s act i on pendi ng t he

Geor gi a Supr eme Cour t s deci si on on the cont r ol l i ng quest i ons of l aw

cer t i f i ed t o t hat cour t by separ at e Or der .

BACKGROUND

Thi s case ar i ses out of f or ecl osure proceedi ngs i nst i t ut ed by

def endant Chase agai nst a resi dence l ocat ed at 2840 Cr escent Wal k

Lane, Suwanee, Geor gi a. ( R&R [ 12] at 2. ) Pl ai nt i f f s pur chased t he

r esi dence i n 2003 wi t h t he pr oceeds of a mort gage l oan obt ai ned f r om

Excel Home Loans ( Excel ) . ( Id. ) To obt ai n t hi s l oan, pl ai nt i f f s

execut ed a pr omi ssory note ( t he Not e) and a secur i t y deed ( t he

Deed) i n f avor of Excel . ( Id. ) Somet i me t her eaf t er , t he Note was

sol d or t r ansf er r ed t o an uni dent i f i ed ent i t y and t he Deed was

assi gned t o Chase s predecessor , Chase Manhat t an Mor t gage Corporat i on

( Chase Mort gage) . ( Id. at 18- 20. ) Ul t i mat el y, Chase Mor t gage

merged i nt o def endant Chase, whi ch then hel d t he secur i t y deed.

Infra at 9.

Chase i ni t i at ed f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs agai nst t he r esi dence i n

2011, af t er pl ai nt i f f s def aul t ed on t hei r l oan. ( Id. at 3, 9. )

Pl ai nt i f f s recei ved not i ce f r om Chase i n J une, 2011 t hat t he

r esi dence woul d be sol d at a f or ecl osur e auct i on on t he f i r st Tuesday

i n August , 2011. ( R&R [ 12] at 3. ) I n accor dance wi t h t he not i ce,

Chase conduct ed a non- j udi ci al f or ecl osur e sal e of t he resi dence on


3/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

1 Obj ect i ons t o t he R&R wer e or i gi nal l y due on J une 6, 2012.( Consent Or der [ 14] . ) J udge Baver man approved a consent orderext endi ng t he deadl i ne t o J une 20, 2012. ( Id. ) Pl ai nt i f f s mi ssedt he extended deadl i ne, and t o t hi s dat e have not f i l ed any obj ect i ons

3

t he st eps of t he Gwi nnet t Count y cour t house on August 2, 2011. ( Id. )

As t he hi ghest bi dder at t he sal e, Chase execut ed a Deed Under Power

conveyi ng al l of pl ai nt i f f s i nt er ests i n t he r esi dence t o i t sel f .

( Id. ) Chase subsequent l y execut ed a qui t cl ai mdeed t r ansf er r i ng i t s

i nt er est s i n t he r esi dence t o def endant Feder al Nat i onal Mor t gage

Associ at i on ( Fanni e Mae) . ( Id. at 4. )

Pur suant t o t he qui t cl ai m deed, Fanni e Mae i ni t i at ed

di spossessor y pr oceedi ngs agai nst pl ai nt i f f s i n t he Gwi nnet t Count y

Magi st r at e Cour t . ( Id. ) On November 3, 2011, t he Magi st r at e Cour t

i ssued a wr i t of possessi on t o Fanni e Mae. ( R&R [ 12] at 4. ) Shor t l y

t her eaf t er , pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s acti on i n Gwi nnet t Count y Super i or

Cour t asser t i ng cl ai ms agai nst Chase and Fanni e Mae f or decl ar at or y

r el i ef , wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e, and wr ongf ul evi ct i on. ( Compl . [ 1] . )

Def endant s f i l ed a t i mel y not i ce t o r emove t he act i on t o t hi s

Cour t on t he gr ound of di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on. ( Not i ce of Removal

[ 1] at 2- 5. ) Fol l owi ng r emoval , def endant s moved t o di smi ss t he

act i on under Feder al Rul e 12( b) ( 6) . ( Def s. Mot . t o Di smi ss [ 2] . )

Magi st r at e J udge Baver man i ssued an R&R r ecommendi ng t hat t he Cour t

gr ant t he mot i on. ( R&R [ 12] at 9- 26. ) Pl ai nt i f f s, who ar e

r epr esent ed by counsel , have not f i l ed any obj ect i ons t o t he R&R. 1


4/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

or r equest ed another ext ensi on.

4

DISCUSSION

I. RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD

The Magi st r at e J udge cor r ect l y set f or t h t he st andar d appl i cabl e

t o a mot i on t o di smi ss under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) . ( Id. at 6- 9. ) I n

deci di ng a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he Cour t assumes t hat al l of t he

al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt ar e t r ue and const r ues t he f act s i n

f avor of t he pl ai nt i f f . Randall v. Scott, 610 F. 3d 701, 705 ( 11t h

Ci r . 2010) . That sai d, i n or der t o avoi d di smi ssal a compl ai nt must

cont ai n suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er , accept ed as t r ue, t o st at e a

cl ai m [ f or ] r el i ef that i s pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . A cl ai m i s f aci al [ l y] pl ausi b[ l e] when

i t i s suppor t ed wi t h f act s t hat al l ow[ ] t he cour t t o dr aw t he

r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant i s l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct

al l eged. Id.

II. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

I n Count I of t hei r compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s asser t a cl ai m f or

decl ar at or y r el i ef i n t he f or m of an or der decreei ng t hat t he

f or ecl osur e deed i s voi d and t hat pl ai nt i f f s ar e t he l egal and

equi t abl e owner s of t he r esi dence. ( Compl . [ 1] at 31. ) Under

Geor gi a l aw, a debt or who execut es a secur i t y deed and def aul t s on a


5/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

5

l oan cannot enj oi n f or ecl osur e, or ot her wi se obt ai n equi t abl e r el i ef

t o cancel t he deed, unl ess t he debt or has f i r st pai d or t ender ed t he

amount due on the l oan. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp. v.

Brown, 276 Ga. 848, 850 (2003) . See also Hill v. Filsoof, 274 Ga.

App. 474, 475 (2005) ( Bef ore one who has gi ven a deed t o secur e hi s

debt can have set asi de i n equi t y a sal e by the cr edi t or i n exer ci se

of t he power conf er r ed by t he deed, and i nj unct i on t o pr event

i nt er f er ence wi t h t he debt or s possessi on of t he pr oper t y conveyed by

t he deed, he must pay or t ender t o t he credi t or t he amount of

pr i nci pal and i nt er est due. ) ( quot i ng Coile v. Fin. Co. of Am., 221

Ga. 584, 585 ( 1965) ) . Thi s i s an appl i cat i on of t he mor e gener al

pr i nci pl e t hat [ h] e who woul d have equi t y must do equi t y. O. C. G. A.

23- 1- 10.

Appl yi ng t he above r ul e, t he Cour t agr ees wi t h t he Magi st r at e

J udge t hat pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m f or decl ar at or y r el i ef i s not vi abl e

under Geor gi a l aw. Pl ai nt i f f s acknowl edge t hat t hey execut ed t he

Deed as secur i t y f or t hei r mor t gage l oan. ( Compl . [ 1] at 8. ) I t

i s undi sput ed t hat pl ai nt i f f s def aul t ed on t he l oan. ( R&R [ 12] at

9. ) Pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege t hat t hey have made or t ender ed payment

t o br i ng t he l oan cur r ent . ( Id. at 11 and Compl . [ 1] . ) Accor di ngl y,

pl ai nt i f f s ar e not ent i t l ed t o an or der decl ar i ng t hem t o be t he

l egal and equi t abl e owner s of t he r esi dence. Def endant s Mot i on t o


6/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

2 The Magi st r at e J udge concl uded t hat al l of pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mswer e bar r ed by t he f ai l ur e t o t ender payment because t he f ai l ur e t opay, r at her t han any act i on by def endant s, caused pl ai nt i f f s i nj ur y.( R&R [ 12] at 11. ) The Cour t agr ees t hat causat i on wi l l l i kel y be anobst acl e f or pl ai nt i f f s on summar y j udgment , gi ven t hei r def aul t .

However , pl ai nt i f f s have suf f i ci ent l y al l eged causat i on t o sur vi ve amot i on t o di smi ss.

3 Pl ai nt i f f s do not obj ect t o t he Magi st r at e J udge s r el i anceon t he proper t y records and merger document s, whi ch ar e bot hundi sput ed and cent r al t o t he cl ai ms asser t ed i n t he compl ai nt . SeeHorsley v. Feldt, 304 F. 3d 1125, 1134 ( 11t h Ci r . 2002) ( a cour t may

6

Di smi ss [ 2] i s t hus GRANTED as t o t he cl ai m f or decl ar at or y r el i ef

asser t ed i n Count I of t he compl ai nt . 2

III. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION

I n Count s I I and I I I of t he compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s asser t cl ai ms

f or wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e and evi ct i on. ( Compl . [ 1] at 32- 38. ) I n

suppor t of t hese cl ai ms, pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat def endant s wer e not

aut hor i zed t o conduct f or ecl osur e or di spossessory pr oceedi ngs

because: ( 1) Excel s i ni t i al assi gnment of t he Deed t o Chase

Mor t gage was def ect i ve, ( 2) Chase never obt ai ned a val i d i nt er est i n

t he Deed, ( 3) Chase was not aut hor i zed t o i nst i t ut e f or ecl osur e

pr oceedi ngs because i t di d not have any i nt er est i n t he l oan at t he

t i me of t he f or ecl osur e, and ( 4) pl ai nt i f f s di d not r ecei ve adequat e

not i ce of t he f or ecl osur e as r equi r ed by O. C. G. A. 44- 14- 162. 2.

(Id.

at 16- 20, 32- 38. ) The Magi st r at e J udge cor r ect l y r ej ect edt he f i r st t wo ar gument s based on t he r el evant pr oper t y records and

mer ger document s. 3 ( R&R [ 12] at 15- 20. ) As di scussed bel ow, t he


7/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

consi der a document t hat i s out si de t he f our cor ner s of t he compl ai nti f i t s aut hent i ci t y i s undi sput ed and i t i s cent r al t o t hepl ai nt i f f s cl ai m) and Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 433F. 3d 1337, 1340 n. 3 ( 11t h Ci r . 2005) ( per mi t t i ng consi der at i on ofdocument s at t ached t o a mot i on t o di smi ss) .

7

r emai ni ng t wo ar gument s r ai se i mport ant and unset t l ed quest i ons of

st at e l aw t hat war r ant cer t i f i cat i on under O. C. G. A. 15- 2- 9.

A. Excel Validly Assigned The Deed To Chase Mortgage.

Pl ai nt i f f s do not di sput e that Excel assi gned t he Deed t o Chase

Mor t gage i mmedi at el y f ol l owi ng t he execut i on of t he l oan agr eement on

Apr i l 29, 2003. ( Compl . [ 1] at 16. ) However , pl ai nt i f f s ar gue

t hat t he assi gnment t o Chase Mort gage i s def ect i ve because i t does

not i dent i f y t he book or page number wher e t he Deed was r ecorded, t he

dat e t he Deed was executed, or t he pr opert y addr ess. ( R&R [ 12] at

13. ) As a r esul t of t hese def i ci enci es, pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he

assi gnment does not val i dl y convey t o Chase Mor t gage a t r ansf er abl e

power of sal e. ( Id. )

The suf f i ci ency of a proper t y descr i pt i on i n a deed i s a

quest i on of l aw t o be deci ded by t he Cour t . Adams v. City of Ila,

221 Ga. App. 372, 373 ( 1996) . Under Georgi a l aw, t he t est f or

suf f i ci ency i s whet her t he deed di scl oses wi t h adequat e cer t ai nt y the

i nt ent i on of t he gr ant or . . . wi t h r espect t o t he quant i t y and

l ocat i on of t he l and conveyed by t he deed. Swan Kang, Inc. v. Kang,

243 Ga. App. 684, 688 ( 2000) . A descr i pt i on i s def i ci ent i f i t i s


8/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

8

so i ndef i ni t e t hat no par t i cul ar t r act of l and i s poi nt ed out . Id.

But even a vague descr i pt i on wi l l suf f i ce i f t he deed f ur ni shes a

key t o cl ar i f y any i ndef i ni t eness as t o t he l and t hat i s i nt ended

t o be conveyed by t he grant or . Id. See also O. C. G. A. 44- 5- 33 ( I f

t he deed i s suf f i ci ent i n i t sel f t o make known t he t r ansact i on

bet ween t he par t i es, no want of f or m wi l l i nval i dat e i t . ) .

The Cour t agrees wi t h t he Magi st r at e J udge t hat t he assi gnment

f r om Excel t o Chase Mor t gage i s suf f i ci ent l y det ai l ed t o meet t he

above r equi r ement s. ( R&R [ 12] at 16- 17. ) The assi gnment t r ansf er s

t o Chase Mor t gage al l of Excel s i nt er est s i n t hat cer t ai n Deed t o

Secur e Debt execut ed by [ pl ai nt i f f s] t o Excel and associ at ed wi t h

t he l oan number 1686223862. ( Ass i gnment , at t ached t o Def s. Mot . t o

Di smi ss [ 2] at Ex. B. ) The assi gnment appears i n t he Gwi nnet t Count y

Deed Book on t he page i mmedi at el y f ol l owi ng t he l oan document s and

t he or i gi nal Deed, whi ch ref erences t he same l oan number and pr ovi des

a physi cal addr ess and l and l ot number f or t he pr oper t y. ( Deed,

at t ached t o Def s. Mot . t o Di smi ss [ 2] at Ex. A. ) These document s

and cross r ef er ences pr ovi de suf f i ci ent keys t o cl ar i f y Excel s

i nt ent t o convey t o Chase Mort gage t he Deed t o pl ai nt i f f s r esi dence.

Mor eover , t he assi gnment i s speci f i c as t o t he r i ght s i t

pur por t s t o convey, i ncl udi ng t he power of sal e. ( Assi gnment [ 2] . )

Pur suant t o t he assi gnment , Chase Mort gage expr essl y acqui r ed t he

af or esai d Secur i t y Deed, t he pr oper t y descr i bed t her ei n, t he


9/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

9

i ndebt edness secur ed t her eby t oget her wi t h al l t he power , opt i ons,

pr i vi l eges and i mmuni t i es t her ei n cont ai ned. ( Id.) Among t he

pr i vi l eges r ef er enced i n t he Deed i s t he power of sal e upon

pl ai nt i f f s def aul t . ( Deed [ 2] . ) Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t GRANTS

def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss [ 2] as t o any cl ai ms f or wr ongf ul

f orecl osur e or evi ct i on based on t he argument t hat Excel s assi gnment

of t he Deed t o Chase Mor t gage i s def ect i ve or t hat t he assi gnment

does not val i dl y convey t o Chase Mor t gage a power of sal e.

B. Chase Acquired The Deed As A Successor By Merger.

The r eal proper t y r ecor ds and mer ger documents f ur t her conf i r m

t hat def endant Chase was t he hol der of t he Deed at t he t i me of t he

f or ecl osur e. ( R&R [ 12] at 18- 20. ) As di scussed, Excel assi gned i t s

i nt erest i n t he Deed t o Chase Mort gage on Apr i l 29, 2003. ( Id. at

19. ) On J anuar y 1, 2005, Chase Mor t gage merged wi t h and i nto Chase

Home Fi nance LLC ( Chase Home) . ( Id. ) Pur suant t o t he mer ger ,

Chase Mor t gage ceased t o exi st as a separ at e ent i t y and Chase Home

acqui r ed al l r i ght s i n the Deed pr evi ousl y hel d by Chase Mor t gage.

( Id. ) On May 1, 2011, Chase Home mer ged wi t h and i nt o def endant

Chase. ( Id. ) Pur suant t o t he merger , Chase Home ceased t o exi st as

a separ at e ent i t y and Chase acqui r ed al l r i ght s i n t he Deed

pr evi ousl y hel d by Chase Home. ( R&R [ 12] at 19. )

Pl ai nt i f f s do not di sput e t he aut hent i ci t y of t he above

document s, whi ch cl ear l y show t he chai n of t i t l e wher eby Chase


10/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

4 Pl ai nt i f f s specul at e t hat def endant Fanni e Mae, r at her t hanChase, hel d t he Not e at t he t i me of t he f or ecl osur e. ( Id. at 10. )

10

acqui r ed t he Deed f r om Excel . Nor do t hey pr ovi de any f act ual

al l egat i ons t o suppor t t hei r concl usor y asser t i on t hat Chase i s not

a successor by mer ger t o t he Deed. Accordi ngl y, t he Cour t GRANTS

def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss [ 2] as t o any cl ai ms f or wr ongf ul

f orecl osur e or evi ct i on based on t he t heory t hat Chase had no

i nt er est i n t he Deed at t he t i me of t he f or ecl osur e.

C. It Is Unclear How Georgia Law Defines Secured Creditor

And Therefore Uncertain Whether Chase, As The Deed Holder,

Was Authorized To Foreclose

Pl ai nt i f f s i ndi cat e i n t hei r compl ai nt t hat even i f Chase was

t he Deed hol der , t he f orecl osur e was never t hel ess i mpr oper because

Chase di d not hol d t he Not e and ther ef or e had no i nt er est i n t he

under l yi ng l oan. ( Compl . [ 1] at 4, 10. ) I n ot her wor ds,

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he secur ed credi t or i s t he ent i t y hol di ng

t he Not e, not t he ent i t y hol di ng t he act ual deed f or t he pr oper t y

t hat secur es t he debt . I f pl ai nt i f f s ar e r i ght , t he l ogi cal

consequence of t hei r argument i s t hat t he hol der of t he Deed, whi ch

i s Chase i n t hi s case, cannot i ni t i at e f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs under

Geor gi a l aw, but i nst ead i t i s onl y t he hol der of t he Not e who can do

so. 4

As most j udges i n t hi s di st r i ct have done, t he Magi st r at e J udge

r ej ect ed an ar gument t hat a deed hol der cannot val i dl y enf or ce i t s


11/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

5 The LaCosta deci si on i s al so based on an agency r at i onal e t hati s not appl i cabl e t o t he Deed t hat i s at i ssue i n t hi s case. Id., at*3-*5.

11

secur i t y i nt er est under Geor gi a l aw wi t hout al so hol di ng t he not e or

owni ng t he under l yi ng debt obl i gat i on. ( R&R [ 12] at 21. ) See, e.g.,

LaCosta v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, Ci vi l Act i on No. 1: 10- CV- 1171- RWS,

2011 WL 166902, at *3- *6 ( N. D. Ga. 2011) ( St or y, J . ) and Kabir v.

Statebridge Co., LLC, No. 1: 11- cv- 2747- WSD, 2011 WL 4500050, at *5

( N. D. Ga. 2011) ( Duf f ey, J . ) . I n LaCosta, as i n t hi s case, t he

or i gi nal deed expr essl y gr ant ed t o i t s hol der an assi gnabl e r i ght t o

exer ci se the power of sal e upon t he pl ai nt i f f s def aul t on her home

mor t gage l oan. LaCosta, 2011 WL 166902, at *3. Gi vi ng t hat l anguage

i t s f ul l f orce and ef f ect , LaCosta hel d t hat an assi gnee of t he deed

coul d val i dl y i nst i t ut e f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs under Geor gi a l aw

wi t hout al so hol di ng t he not e, and ther ef or e di smi ssed t he

pl ai nt i f f s wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e cl ai m, whi ch was based on t he same

t heor y t hat pl ai nt i f f s asser t her e. Id., at *3- *6.

The LaCosta deci si on i s gr ounded i n wel l - est abl i shed pr i nci pl es

of cont r act l aw. Id. Speci f i cal l y, a deed i s a cont r act and i t s

pr ovi si ons, i ncl udi ng t he expr ess and unequi vocal l anguage gr ant i ng

t he deed hol der an assi gnabl e power of sal e, i s cont r ol l i ng as t o t he

r i ght s of t he par t i es. 5 Id. The El event h Ci r cui t has i ndi cat ed i t s

appr oval of t hi s r easoni ng. See Smith v. Saxon Mortg., 446 Fed.


12/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

12

App x 239 ( 11t h Ci r . 2011) ( af f i r mi ng summary j udgment on a wr ongf ul

f or ecl osur e cl ai m based on t he same t heor y) .

As addi t i onal suppor t f or t hi s r at i onal e, sever al j udges have

ci t ed O. C. G. A. 44- 14- 64( b) . See, e.g., Kabir, 2011 WL 4500050, at

*5 and In re Corley, 447 B. R. 375, 383 ( S. D. Ga. 2011) ( Davi s, Bankr .

J . ) . That st at ut e provi des t hat :

Tr ansf er s of deeds t o secur e debt . . . shal l besuf f i ci ent t o t r ansf er t he pr oper t y t her ei n descr i bed andt he i ndebt edness t her ei n secur ed, whet her t he i ndebt edness

i s evi denced by a not e or ot her i nst r ument .

O. C. G. A. 44- 14- 64( b) . Appl yi ng 44- 14- 64( b) , t hese j udges have

concl uded t hat when a deed i s t r ansf er r ed, a suf f i ci ent i nt er est i n

t he under l yi ng debt f ol l ows t he deed t o per mi t f orecl osur e by t he

deed hol der . Kabir, 2011 WL 4500050, at *5 and In re Corley, 447

B. R. at 383. I n accor dance wi t h 44- 14- 64( b) , t he Excel assi gnment

her e expr essl y t r ansf er s t o Chase Mor t gage t he af or esai d Secur i t y

Deed, t he pr oper t y descr i bed t her ei n, [ and] t he i ndebt edness secur ed

t her eby. ( Assi gnment [ 2] . )

Fi nal l y, t he r easoni ng of LaCosta i s consi st ent wi t h Geor gi a

case l aw hol di ng t hat a secur i t y deed st ands al one and may be

execut ed accor di ng t o i t s t er ms even i f t he pr omi ssor y not e

associ at ed wi t h t he deed i s unenf or ceabl e. Decatur Fed. Sav. and

Loan v. Gibson, 268 Ga. 362, 364 ( 1997) . For exampl e, t he Geor gi a

Supr eme Cour t has hel d t hat a deed hol der can enf orce i t s secur i t y


13/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

13

i nt er est even i f an act i on on t he under l yi ng not e i s t i me- bar r ed.

Brinson v. McMillan, 263 Ga. 802 ( 1994) . As t he cour t expl ai ned i n

Brinson, even i f . . . an act i on t o col l ect t he debt i s bar r ed by

t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i on, such woul d not pr event [ t he deed hol der ]

f r omexer ci si ng [ i t s] r i ght s under t he secur i t y deed. Id. See also

Minton v. Raytheon Co., 222 Ga. App. 85, 87 ( 1996) ( Al t hough t he

l ender i s f or ecl osed f r om col l ect i ng on t he under l yi ng pr omi ssor y

not e . . . i t r et ai ns i t s r i ght s pur suant t o i t s owner shi p i nt er est

under t he deed t o secur e debt on t he subj ect pr oper t y. ) . By

anal ogy, a deed hol der shoul d be abl e to enf or ce i t s owner shi p

i nt er est i n a deed even i f t he deed hol der has no benef i ci al i nt er est

i n t he not e or t he under l yi ng i ndebt edness.

The r easoni ng of t he LaCosta deci si on and progeny has not been

uni ver sal l y f ol l owed i n t hi s di st r i ct, however , and a spl i t of

aut hor i t y has devel oped as t o whether a deed hol der who does not al so

possess t he not e can val i dl y i nst i t ut e f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs under

Geor gi a l aw. Denyi ng a mot i on t o di smi ss on f act s si mi l ar t o t hose

pr esent ed her e, a col l eague has hel d t hat separ at i on of t he not e and

t he secur i t y deed . . . creat e[ s] a subst ant i al quest i on of what

ent i t y has t he ri ght t o f or ecl ose when t he bor r ower def aul t s on t hel oan. Morgan v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1375

( N. D. Ga. 2011) ( Tot enber g, J . ) . Addr essi ng t he i ssue mor e di r ect l y

i n a l at er case, t he Morgan cour t concl uded t hat Geor gi a st at ut es


14/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

14

and case l aw r equi r e t he hol der of t he l oan t o car r y out t he

f or ecl osur e and t o i dent i f y i t sel f as t he secur ed credi t or of publ i c

r ecor d pr i or t o t he f or ecl osur e sal e. Stubbs v. Bank of Am., 844 F.

Supp. 2d 1267, 1273 n. 3 ( N. D. Ga. 2012) ( Tot enber g, J . ) .

Shoul d t he r at i onal e set f or t h i n Morgan and Stubbs accur at el y

r ef l ect Geor gi a l aw, pl ai nt i f f s wi l l have st at ed pl ausi bl e cl ai ms f or

wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e and evi ct i on. Shoul d t he r at i onal e expr essed i n

t he cont r ar y l i ne of f eder al aut hor i t y cor r ect l y r epr esent Geor gi a

l aw, pl ai nt i f f s wi l l not have st at ed pl ausi bl e cl ai ms.

As i ndi cat ed by t he above di scussi on, Geor gi a l aw i s uncl ear on

one of t he det er mi nat i ve quest i ons at i ssue i n t hi s case: whet her a

deed hol der who does not al so hol d t he note, or have an i nt er est i n

t he under l yi ng debt obl i gat i on, can val i dl y i nst i t ut e f or ecl osur e

pr oceedi ngs. Resol ut i on of t he mot i ons depends on unset t l ed

quest i ons of Geor gi a l aw. Geor gi a l aw aut hor i zes cer t i f i cat i on of

st at e l aw quest i ons t hat ar e det er mi nat i ve of [ a] case pendi ng i n

f eder al di st r i ct cour t when t her e ar e no cl ear cont r ol l i ng

pr ecedent s i n t he deci si ons of t he Georgi a Supr eme Cour t . O. C. G. A.

15- 2- 9( a) . The El event h Ci r cui t has i ndi cat ed t hat [ s] ubst ant i al

doubt about a quest i on of st at e l aw upon whi ch a par t i cul ar case

t ur ns shoul d be r esol ved by cer t i f yi ng t he quest i on t o t he st at e

supr eme cour t . Cascade Crossing II, LLC v. Radioshack Corp., 480


15/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

15

F. 3d 1228, 1231 ( 11t h Ci r . 2007) ( cer t i f yi ng a quest i on concer ni ng t he

appl i cat i on of O. C. G. A. 13- 1- 11) .

Gi ven t he l ack of any cont r ol l i ng Geor gi a aut hor i t y, t he Cour t

concl udes t hat cer t i f i cat i on of t hi s quest i on t o t he Geor gi a Supr eme

Cour t i s war r ant ed. I t s deci si on on t he cer t i f i ed quest i on wi l l

determi ne t he out come of def endant s mot i on as t o t he wr ongf ul

f or ecl osur e and evi ct i on cl ai ms t hat ar e based on a theor y that

Chase, as t he Deed hol der , was not aut hor i zed t o f orecl ose on

pl ai nt i f f s r esi dence. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t DENIES def endant s

Mot i on t o Di smi ss [ 2] t hose cl ai ms without prejudice, and STAYS t hi s

case pendi ng t he Geor gi a Supr eme Cour t s deci si on.

D. Georgia Law Concerning The Notification Required By

O.C.G.A. 44-14-162.2(a) Is Also Unsettled

Pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat Chase s f or ecl osur e was al so wr ongf ul

because i t di d not compl y wi t h Geor gi a s f or ecl osur e not i ce st at ut e:

O. C. G. A. 44- 14- 162. 2( a) . That st at ut e pr ovi des t hat :

Not i ce of t he i ni t i at i on of pr oceedi ngs t o exer ci se a powerof sal e i n a mor t gage, secur i t y deed, or ot her l i encont r act shal l be gi ven t o t he debt or by t he secur edcr edi t or no l at er t han 30 days bef or e t he dat e of t hepr oposed f or ecl osur e. Such not i ce shal l be i n wr i t i ng,shal l i ncl ude t he name, addr ess, and t el ephone number oft he i ndi vi dual or ent i t y who shal l have f ul l aut hor i t y t o

negot i ate, amend, and modi f y al l t er ms of t he mort gage wi t ht he debt or , and shal l be sent by r egi st er ed or cer t i f i edmai l or st at ut or y over ni ght del i ver y, r et ur n r ecei ptr equest ed, t o t he pr oper t y addr ess or t o such other addr essas t he debt or may desi gnate by wr i t t en not i ce t o t hesecur ed cr edi t or . The not i ce r equi r ed by t hi s Code sect i on


16/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

6 To t he ext ent t hat pl ai nt i f f s ar e ar gui ng t hat not i ce has t obe sent by the secur ed credi t or , i t sel f , t he Cour t i s awar e of noaut hor i t y suppor t i ng i t . I n Alexis v. Mortg. Elec. RegistrationSys., Inc., Ci vi l Act i on No. 1: 11- CV- 01967- RSW, 2012 WL 716161, at *4( N. D. Ga. 2012) ( St or y, J . ) , t he cour t not ed, The goal of Sect i on

16

shal l be deemed gi ven on t he of f i ci al post mark day or dayon whi ch i t i s r ecei ved f or del i ver y by a commer ci aldel i ver y f i r m. Not hi ng i n t hi s subsect i on shal l be

const r ued t o r equi r e a secur ed cr edi t or t o negot i at e,amend, or modi f y t he t erms of a mor t gage i nst r ument .

O. C. G. A. 44- 14- 162. 2( a) ( emphasi s added) .

Pl ai nt i f f s acknowl edge t hat Chase pr ovi ded not i ce of t he

pr oposed f orecl osur e more t han 30 days pr i or t o t he pr oceedi ng, and

t hey do not poi nt t o any pr ocedur al def ect s i n t he not i ce.

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hi s st at ut e was never t hel ess vi ol at ed i n t wo

ways. Fi r st , t hey r epeat t hei r ar gument t hat Chase i s not a secur ed

credi t or . As 44- 14- 162. 2( a) i ndi cat es t hat not i ce of t he

f orecl osur e pr oceedi ng must be pr ovi ded by t he secur ed cr edi t or ,

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hi s di d not occur . Thi s cont ent i on i s l ar gel y

a r ehash of pl ai nt i f f s pr evi ous ar gument t hat onl y a secur ed

cr edi t or can i ni t i at e f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs and t hat because

pl ai nt i f f s do not deemChase t o be a secur ed cr edi t or , i t was not t he

ent i t y t hat shoul d have l aunched t he f or ecl osur e pr ocess. Thi s

ar gument t her ef or e i s l ess an obj ect i on t o t he adequacy of t he not i ce

pr ovi ded t han an obj ect i on t o t he l egi t i macy of t he f or ecl osur e

process, i t sel f . 6


17/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

162 i s t o gi ve t he debt or not i ce of t he f or ecl osur e sal e. Whet hert hat not i ce i s pr ovi ded by the secur ed credi t or di r ect l y, or by i t sagent , i s of no consequence. ( quot i ng LaCosta, 2011 WL 166902, at*3- *4) . Li kewi se, i n Stubbs v. Bank of Am., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1267,1271 ( N. D. Ga. 2012) ( Tot enber g, J . ) , t hat cour t not ed t hat whi l edi scl osur e of t he i dent i t y of t he secur ed credi t or i s r equi r ed under

44- 14- 162. 2( a) , i t i s l i kel y of no consequence who act ual l y sendst he not i ce, and t hat t ask may pr oper l y be del egat ed t o a servi ci ngagent . . . .

7 I n t r ut h, pl ai nt i f f s posi t i on i s mor e gar bl ed t han summar i zedabove. I n t hei r r esponse [7] t o def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss,pl ai nt i f f s ci t e t o t he f or ecl osur e not i ce l et t er sent t o t hem. I n onepar agr aph of t he r esponse, pl ai nt i f f s i ndi cat e t hat t hese l et t er si dent i f y Chase as t he secur ed credi t or , whi ch pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t o bea l i e, as Chase di d not own t he not e. ( Pl s. Resp. [ 7] at 9, 1st . )

I n t he second paragr aph of t hi s same page, as quoted i n t ext ,pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he not i ce l et t er di d not i dent i f y t he secur edcredi t or . As t he r esponse br i ef heavi l y r el i es on t he Stubbsdeci si on, di scussed infra, whose cent er pi ece, as f ar as not i ce goes,i s t he f ai l ur e of a not i ce l et t er t o i dent i f y t he secur ed credi t or ,t he Cour t i nf er s t hat t hi s i s t he posi t i on bei ng t aken by pl ai nt i f f s.

17

Pl ai nt i f f s second ar gument t ouches mor e cl osel y on a not i ce

i ssue. Speci f i cal l y, pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat 44- 14- 162. 2( a)

r equi r es t hat t he name of t he secur ed cr edi t or be i ndi cat ed i n t he

not i ce of f or ecl osur e sal e. 7 Pl ai nt i f f s aver t hat t he f or ecl osur e

not i ce l et t er s f ai l t o even i dent i f y t he secur ed credi t or by name.

( Pl s. Resp. [ 7] at 9, 2nd . ) Accor di ngl y, t hi s pur por t ed def ect i n

t he not i ce r ender ed t he f or ecl osur e i nval i d.

The quest i on t hen i s whether 44- 14- 162. 2( a) r equi r es a

f or ecl osur e sal e not i ce t o i dent i f y t he secur ed credi t or and, i f i t


18/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

18

does, has Chase compl i ed? Accor di ng t o t he Stubbs deci si on, whi l e i t

does not mat t er who act ual l y sends t he not i ce t o the debt or - be i t

t he secur ed cr edi t or or someone el se- t he not i ce must speci f y who

i s t he secur ed credi t or . Stubbs, 844 F. Supp. 2d at 1271- 72. The

f act t hat t he not i ce pr ovi des t he name and cont act i nf or mat i on of t he

ent i t y wi t h t he power t o modi f y t he t er ms of t he mort gage, as

expl i ci t l y r equi r ed by t he st at ut e, does not suf f i ce i f t he name of

t he secur ed credi t or i s not al so st at ed. Agai n, under t hi s

i nt er pr et at i on, t he secur ed credi t or i s t he ent i t y t hat hol ds t he

not e, whi ch i s not necessari l y t he same as t he ent i t y hol di ng t he

secur i t y deed.

I n a cl osel y- di vi ded opi ni on r egar di ng t he i nf or mat i on t hat i s

r equi r ed i n a f or ecl osur e not i ce, t he Geor gi a Cour t of Appeal s has

r ecent l y adopt ed t he Stubbs appr oach, al bei t i n a case i nvol vi ng

not i ce pr ovi ded by a servi ci ng agent who was nei t her t he note hol der

nor t he deed hol der . See Reese v. Provident Funding Assoc., LLP, No.

A12A0619, 2012 WL 2849700, at *3- *4 ( Ga. App. J ul y 12, 2012) . That

i s, t he Cour t of Appeal s hel d t hat a f or ecl osur e not i ce must i dent i f y

t he name of t he secur ed cr edi t or . Al t hough t he opi ni on appeared t o

assume t hat t he not e hol der woul d be deemed t o be t he secured


19/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

8 Wi t hout any di scussi on as t o why t he hol der of t he note (RFC)shoul d be deemed t he secur ed cr edi t or , as opposed t o the hol der oft he secured deed ( MERS) , t he opi ni on not es i n one paragr aph t hat RFCwas t he secur ed cr edi t or : Rat her , RFC was t he secur ed cr edi t or ,i . e. , owner of t he l oan. . . . and I ndeed, t he not i ce made no ment i onwhat soever of RFC, t he secur ed credi t or . . . . Id., at *2.

19

cr edi t or , 8 id. , t he cour t was not r equi r ed t o deci de whet her t he deed

hol der coul d al so f i t t hat descri pt i on, as t he ser vi ci ng agent

cl ear l y f i l l ed nei t her r ol e. Thus, t he opi ni on i s l i mi t ed t o a

det er mi nat i on of what has t o be di scl osed, and not , when i t comes t o

secur ed credi t or s, a def i ni t i on of t hat t er m.

Appl yi ng t he Reese deci si on t o t hi s case, and assumi ng t hat t he

deed hol der ( Chase) i s t he secur ed cr edi t or , i t i s not cl ear whet her

t he not i ce her e woul d compl y wi t h di r ect i ve l ai d down byt he Reese

maj or i t y. That i s, di d t he not i ce i ndi cat e t hat Chase was the

secur ed cr edi t or . The Not i ce of Sal e Under Power [ 1- 3] st at es, i n

per t i nent par t :

THI S I S AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. . . under and by vi r t ueof t he Power of Sal e cont ai ned i n a Secur i t y Deed gi ven byChae Yi You . . . t o Excel Home Loan. . . as l ast t r ansf er r ed t oChase Manhat t an Mor t gage Corporat i on. . . . conveyi ng theaf t er - descr i bed pr oper t y t o secur e a Not e i n t he or i gi nalpr i nci pl e amount of $185, 800.

The ent i t y t hat has f ul l aut hor i t y t o negot i at e, amend andmodi f y al l t er ms of t he mor t gage wi t h t he debt or i sJ PMor gan Chase Bank [ cont act i nf or mat i on omi t t ed] . Pl easeunder st and t hat t he secur ed cr edi t or i s not r equi r ed by l awt o negot i at e, amend or modi f y t he t erms of t he mor t gagei nst r ument .


20/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

20

The sal e wi l l be conduct ed subj ect . . . t o f i nal conf i r mat i onand audi t of t he st at us of t he l oan wi t h t he hol der of t hesecur i t y deed.

J PMor gan Chase Bank, Nat i onal Associ at i on successor bymer ger t o Chase Home Fi nance LLC successor by mer ger t oChase Manhat t an Mor t gage Corpor at i on

as At t or ney i n Fact f orChae Yi You and Chur K Back

McCal l a Raymer , LLC[ cont act i nf or mat i on omi t t ed]

( Id. at 7) ( emphasi s added) .

As t he above f or ecl osur e not i ce was sent i n J ul y 2011, pr i or t o

t he J ul y 2012 Reese deci si on, def endant Chase woul d not have been

aware that i t shoul d announce t he name of t he secur ed cr edi t or i n t he

not i ce. Thi s r equi r ement was not expl i ci t l y st at ed i n t he st at ut e

and t he Reese maj or i t y i nf er r ed t hi s r equi r ement t hr ough appl i cat i on

of pr i nci pl es of st at ut or y const r ucti on. Dr af t er s of st at ut or i l y-

r equi r ed not i ces t end not t o be creat i ve sor t s and, f or good or i l l ,

t hey t ypi cal l y hew l i t er al l y t o what ever t he st at ut e cal l s f or . So,

Chase di d not bol dl y announce i t sel f as t he secur ed credi t or , l i kel y

because i t di d not know t hat i t was supposed t o.

The quest i on t hen becomes whether what was sai d i n t he not i ce

was suf f i ci ent t o i ndi cat e t o t he r eader t hat Chase di d, i n f act ,

occupy t hat r ol e. As set out above, t he not i ce i ndi cat ed t hat t he

f or ecl osur e sal e per t ai ned t o a secur i t y deed on pl ai nt i f f s pr oper t y

t hat had l ast been t r ansf err ed t o Chase Manhat t en Mor t gage


21/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

21

Cor por at i on. As not ed supra at 9- 10, t hi s ent i t y had ul t i mat el y been

merged i nt o def endant J PMorgan Chase Bank, whi ch accor di ngl y hel d the

secur i t y deed at t he t i me of t he f or ecl osur e auct i on.

The not i ce f ur t her i ndi cat ed t hat def endant Chase Bank had f ul l

aut hor i t y to modi f y t he mor t gage, and gave t he l at t er s cont act

i nf ormat i on. The next sent ence does not ment i on Chase by name, but

one coul d r easonabl y i nf er t hat i t i s r ef er r i ng t o def endant Chase

when i t says t he secur ed cr edi t or i s not r equi r ed t o negot i at e a

modi f i cat i on of t he mor t gage t er ms. Whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat t he not i ce

does not i ndi cat e t he merger hi st ory between def endant Chase and

Chase Manhat t en Mor t gage, t he si mi l ar i t y of t he names, combi ned wi t h

t he pr oxi mi t y of t he t er m secur ed cr edi t or t o t he r ef er ence t o

def endant Chase as t he ent i t y wi t h the power t o modi f y t he mor t gage,

i mpl i es t hat def endant Chase i s, i n f act , t he secur ed credi t or .

Fi nal l y, t he l ast par agr aph i ndi cat es t hat t he sal e wi l l be

conduct ed subj ect t o conf i r mat i on by the hol der of t he secur i t y deed.

Under t hat sent ence, and pr omi nent l y vi si bl e, i s t he name of

def endant : J PMor gan Chase Bank.

I n t he above not i ce, t he onl y r eal i st i c candi dat e f or t he r ol e

of secur ed cr edi t or i s def endant Chase, and def endant Chase i s i n

f act t he hol der of t he secur i t y deed. Thus, i f t he Geor gi a Supr eme

Cour t det er mi nes t hat , f or pur poses of t he Geor gi a f or ecl osur e


22/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

9 On t hi s i ssue, an even more r ecent deci si on of t he Georgi aCour t of Appeal s suggest s a devel opi ng conf l i ct i n t hat cour t as t owhet her a not i ce t hat does not compl y wi t h t he r equi r ement s set f or t h

i n Reese mi ght never t hel ess subst ant i al l y compl y wi t h O. C. G. A. 44-14- 162. 2. See Stowers v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. A12A1176,2012 WL 3601795, at *2 ( Ga. App. Aug. 23, 2012) ( f i ndi ng subst ant i alcompl i ance wher e t he not i ce i dent i f i ed onl y t he l ender s at t or ney,who was nei t her t he secur ed cr edi t or nor t he ent i t y wi t h f ul laut hor i t y t o modi f y t he l oan) .

22

st at ut e, t he hol der of a secur i t y deed i s t he secur ed credi t or , t hen

t he not i f i cat i on her e woul d seem t o be adequat e t o convey that

i nf or mat i on t o t he i ndi vi dual s whose pr oper t y i s bei ng f or ecl osed.

Fur t her , t he Reese maj or i t y mi ght wel l be r ecept i ve t o such an

i nf er ence. Al bei t Reese l ai d out a r ul e of gener al appl i cabi l i t y, i t

r eached t hat r esul t based on concer ns about t he conf usi on t hat woul d

occur when not i ce i s sent by a t hi r d par t y ot her t han t he secur ed

cr edi t or . . . . Reese, 2012 WL 2849700, at *2. Yet , whi l e a st r ong

argument coul d be made that def endant Chase s not i f i cat i on here was

adequat e, even under t he newl y announced st andar d set out i n Reese,

t he par t i es have not br i ef ed t he quest i on of subst ant i al compl i ance. 9

So, per haps t hi s not i ce mi ght not compl y wi t h Reese. Thus, i t i s

possi bl e t hat def endant Chase, t he hol der of t he secur i t y deed, coul d

wi n t he bat t l e over i t s st at us as a secur ed credi t or , but l ose t he

war based on t he f act t hat i t s di scl osur e of t hi s f act di d not meet

must er under t he Reese st andard.


23/24AO 72A

(Rev.8/82)

23

For t hi s reason, i t i s a di sposi t i ve quest i on i n t hi s case

whet her 44- 14- 162. 2( a) r equi r es t hat a f or ecl osur e not i ce i dent i f y

an ent i t y as t he secur ed cr edi t or , and do so even i f t he secur ed

cr edi t or has been i dent i f i ed as t he ent i t y wi t h t he power t o modi f y

t he mort gage t er ms. As t hi s i s a quest i on of st ate l aw upon whi ch

t hi s case t ur ns and as t her e i s no cont r ol l i ng deci si on by the

Geor gi a Supr eme Cour t , t he Cour t l i kewi se cer t i f i es t hi s quest i on.

Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t DENIES def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss [ 2]

t hose cl ai ms without prejudice, and STAYS t hi s case pendi ng t he

Georgi a Supr eme Cour t s deci si on.

CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Cour t ACCEPTS t he Magi st r at e

J udge s R&R [ 12] as t o t hose quest i ons not cer t i f i ed t o t he Georgi a

Supr eme Cour t and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part def endant s

Mot i on t o Di smi ss [ 2] . The Cour t STAYS t he case pendi ng the Geor gi a

Supr eme Cour t s deci si on on t he quest i ons cer t i f i ed i n conj unct i on

wi t h t hi s Or der .

As t he Cour t can t ake no f ur t her act i on pendi ng a response t o

t he cer t i f i ed quest i ons by t he Geor gi a Supr eme Cour t , i t

admi ni st r at i vel y t er mi nat es t hi s act i on. Wi t hi n 60 days of t he

deci si on of t he Geor gi a Supr eme Cour t , t he par t i es shal l not i f y thi s

Cour t of t he deci si on and i ndi cat e how t hey wi sh t o pr oceed. At t hat


24/24

24

t i me, t he Cour t wi l l admi ni st r at i vel y reopen t he act i on and pr oceed

wi t h t he l i t i gat i on.

SO ORDERED, t hi s 7t h day of Sept ember , 2012.

/ s/ J ul i e E. Car nesJ ULI E E. CARNESCHI EF UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE

Documents

You v JP Morgan Chase Bank NA