Blas v. Bank of America N.A., 031319 AKSC, 1716
|Party Name:||LEO BLAS, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Appearances: Leo Bias, pro se, Chugiak, Appellant. Michael Seville, Burr, Pease & Kurtz, Anchorage, and Andrea M. Hicks, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices.|
|Case Date:||March 13, 2019|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Alaska|
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d).
Appeal from the Superior Court No. 3 AN-14-04595 CI Supreme Court No. S-16933 of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Eric A. Aarseth, Judge.
Appearances: Leo Bias, pro se, Chugiak, Appellant.
Michael Seville, Burr, Pease & Kurtz, Anchorage, and Andrea M. Hicks, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
In 2010 Leo Bias, a homeowner, defaulted on his home loan payments and filed a lawsuit to bar non-judicial foreclosure.1 After the case was settled and the parties entered into a modification agreement, Bias again defaulted on his payments, the bank again initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, and Bias filed a second lawsuit.2The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, and in April 2017 we affirmed.3 We held that "[t]he superior court did not err by finding that Bank of America has authority to bring the foreclosure action against Bias"; that "Bank of America is explicitly listed as the beneficiary of [Bias's] deed of trust, and it is permitted to act on Fannie Mae's behalf';4 and that the superior court did not err by granting summary judgment on the remainder of Bias's claims - including his claims for (1) intent to defraud, (2) failing to act as a fiduciary, and (3) Fourteenth Amendment and due process violations.5
In October 2017 Bias filed an Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, arguing there was new evidence showing that a fraudulent illegal endorsement of his mortgage note had occurred. The motion stated in relevant part: "The plaintiff... is moving to vacate the judgment in this case Per Rule 60(b)(3) based on the new evidence (enclosed) of intrinsic fraudulent endorsement of the mortgage note on [his] home...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP