Blas v. Bank of America N.A., 031319 AKSC, 1716

Docket Nº: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
 
FREE EXCERPT

LEO BLAS, Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Appellee.

No. 1716

Supreme Court of Alaska

March 13, 2019

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP