Davis v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01932-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01932-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-17-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Deed of trust - Invalid property description - Newly discovered evidence - M.R.C.P. 60(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-29-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: Motion to Set Aside Foreclosure and Motion to Set Aside Judgment Denied. Motion for Citation of Contempt Granted. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charles Davis and Vera Davis |
SHARON D. HENDERSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Emily Kaye Courteau, Substituted Trustee | JAMES ELDRED RENFROE, ROY J. PERILLOUX, MICHAEL ALAN JEDYNAK |
|
|
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 - Deed of trust - Invalid property description - Newly discovered evidence - M.R.C.P. 60(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles and Vera Davis owned 160 acres of property in Hinds County. The Davises took out a loan on a 6.32-acre portion of the property with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. being the loan’s beneficiary. The Davises brought suit against Countrywide regarding an issue with the property description in the loan as it encumbered all 160 acres as opposed to just the 6.32 acres originally intended by the parties. Countrywide executed a release of all property in the description except for the 6.32 acres. The case was sent to arbitration where the arbitrator found that the Davises’ claims had no merit. The Davises attempted to amend their complaint but the chancery court dismissed the case with prejudice. Still having received no payments from the Davises, Countrywide commenced its first foreclosure. The Davises filed suit again alleging the same issues from the previous suit. This case was removed to federal court where summary judgment was granted in favor of Countrywide. Countrywide commenced its second foreclosure. This foreclosure was completed. A year later, the Davises filed suit again; this time, they filed a petition to set aside the foreclosure. The chancery court granted summary judgment in favor of Countrywide. The Davises appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Davises argue that the property description in the original deed of trust was ambiguous and incorrect; thus, the subsequent foreclosure sale using that property description is invalid and should be set aside. They argue that the description in the deed of trust encumbers the whole property, including land owned by persons other than the Davises, and that Countrywide’s partial release is not sufficient to cure the error in the property description stated in the deed of trust. The Davises also argue that the chancellor erred in denying their M.R.C.P. 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment based on newly discovered evidence. The Davises failed to cite to any authority in support of their argument that the chancellor erred by not setting aside the foreclosure due to newly discovered evidence. The failure to cite any authority is a procedural bar. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
