Stuckey v. The Provident Bank
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02003-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-CA-02003-COA ; 1999-CT-02003-SCT ; 2005-IA-02003-SCT ; 2005-IA-02003-SCT ; 2002-CT-02003-SCT ; 2002-CP-02003-COA ; 2002-CP-02003-COA ; 2013-CA-02003-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-17-2005 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Foreclosure - Summary judgment - M.R.C.P. 56 - Allegations in pleadings - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - Holder in due course Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-14-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: Dismissed the action. Case Number: G 2002-14 S/2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ISAAC STUCKEY AND KAREN STUCKEY |
R. CHARLES ROBB |
||
| Appellee: | THE PROVIDENT BANK | RICHARD SCOTT PIETROWSKI |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Foreclosure - Summary judgment - M.R.C.P. 56 - Allegations in pleadings - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - Holder in due course |
| Summary of the Facts: | Isaac and Karen Stuckey refinanced their home through Southern Mortgage Company, a Louisiana corporation, and borrowed a total of $27,000. SMC was named as the Stuckeys’ official lender and beneficiary, and the account was to be funded through a warehouse line of credit which SMC maintained with the Evangeline Bank, another Louisiana financial institution. The Provident Bank, an Ohio banking corporation, purchased the rights to the Stuckey loan from SMC by way of payment of the appropriate funds wired directly to the Evangeline Bank for credit to SMC’s account. When the Stuckeys stopped making their mortgage payments and were in default on their loan, Provident, as the holder of the deed of trust, instituted foreclosure proceedings against the Stuckeys. The Stuckeys filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County by filing a sworn pleading entitled “Motion For Injunctive Relief And Complaint.” The complaint sought to enjoin Provident from foreclosing on the Stuckey loan and alleged that Provident along with its agents had conspired with SMC to engage in predatory lending practices to the detriment of the Stuckeys. On motion of two of the defendants, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; however, the case was subsequently remanded back to chancery court. The chancery court entered a very detailed scheduling order. In compliance with the chancery court’s scheduling order, the Stuckeys filed an amended complaint which was signed only by the Stuckeys’ attorney, and was thus an unsworn pleading. Provident filed its answer accompanied by a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Provident on all claims asserted by the Stuckeys in their amended complaint, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and certified that dismissal as final. The Stuckeys appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Summary judgment The Stuckeys argue that the chancery court erroneously overlooked the statements and factual inferences contained within the four corners of their thirty-three page complaint and misapplied the law by granting summary judgment. M.R.C.P. 56 provides the means by which a party may pierce the allegations in the pleadings and obtain relief by introducing outside evidence showing that there are no fact issues that need to be tried. The party opposing the motion is required to bring forward significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of the triable issue of fact. The Stuckeys have clearly misapprehended the fact-driven purpose and function of summary judgment in favor of the much different M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While the two rules provide for dismissal of actions, their bases are completely different. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests legal sufficiency, while Rule 56 tests the notion of well-pled facts and requires a party to present probative evidence demonstrating triable issues of fact. The Stuckeys have included a litany of allegations in their sworn complaint which, if supported, would produce genuine issues of material fact for trial. However, the Stuckeys have mistakenly relied solely on their sworn complaint in an effort to avoid summary judgment. The express provisions of Rule 56(c) and our case law interpreting this rule mandate that the trial judge, in considering a motion for summary judgment, must inter alia review and consider the pleadings on file. Certainly, the trial judge must consider the pleadings, whether they be sworn or unsworn, which the judge in this case did. The Stuckeys propose that the allegations contained in their sworn complaint should be deemed as creating genuine issues of material fact because they, themselves, believe these allegations to be true. This assertion is contrary to the spirit of Rule 56, and our case law interpreting our summary judgment procedure. The Stuckeys, in response to the motion for summary judgment, were required to do more than rest on the mere allegations of their pleadings, sworn or unsworn, and when the Stuckeys chose to do no nothing more in response to Provident’s motion for summary judgment, they rolled the dice and lost. Even if the Stuckeys’ sworn complaint were analyzed as an affidavit, the complaint’s admissibility as substantive evidence fails due to the complainants’ lack of personal knowledge concerning any material fact allegation. Issue 2: Holder in due course The Stuckeys argue that the sworn complaint established evidence to place the investigation of Provident’s notice of irregularities of the loan closing in equilibrio, thus creating a triable issue concerning Provident being a holder in due course. Provident has produced uncontested evidence and has expressly documented the fact that it purchased the rights to the Stuckeys’ loan for value, in good faith, without notice of uncured default and without notice of impropriety. The chancellor’s dismissal of Provident was appropriate as nothing in the record evidences that Provident was in collusion with SMC. Moreover, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Provident’s status as a holder in due course. Under Mississippi law and as a holder in due course, Provident therefore is immune to any claim of impropriety against SMC, its predecessor in interest, and was properly dismissed from this suit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
