Brooks v. Helgoe, File No. 27CV05-2564.
| Decision Date | 26 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | File No. 27CV05-2564. |
| Parties | Thomas Brooks, Plaintiff, v. Richard Helgoe, Richard Everson, Dannik Enterprises, Inc., and Theresa Brooks. Defendants. |
| Court | Minnesota District Court |
Jay A. Joyner, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
No one appeared on behalf of Defendants Richard E. Helgoe or Richard J. Everson.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS RICHARD E. HELGOE AND RICHARD J. EVERSON
1. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendants Richard E. Helgoe and Richard J. Everson is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have and recover from Defendants Helgoe and Everson, jointly and severally, the sum of Thirty-four Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100ths ($34,500.00) Dollars, together with costs and disbursements.
2. The following Memorandum of Law is hereby incorporated by reference.
The facts in the Court's October 25, 2005 Order are incorporated herein by reference, but can be summarized as follows:
On November 15, 1994, Plaintiff Thomas Brooks ("Plaintiff") and his wife, Defendant Theresa Brooks ("Defendant Brooks"), jointly as married individuals, signed a Contract for Deed with Defendants Richard E. Helgoe ("Helgoe") and Richard J. Everson ("Everson") to purchase a residential property at 2720 Harriet Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota ("the Property"). This Contract for Deed was not recorded by Plaintiff, Defendant Brooks, Defendant Helgoe, or Defendant Everson.
Defendants Helgoe and Everson had previously mortgaged the Property. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract for Deed, Plaintiff and Defendant Brooks would make payments to Defendants Helgoe and Everson, who in turn would continue making mortgage payments on the Property.
Plaintiff and Defendant Brooks' marriage was subsequently dissolved pursuant to a Judgment and Decree of Dissolution (" Judgment and Decree") entered by the Hennepin County District Court, Family Division, on May 22, 2000. Plaintiff did not record a certified copy of the Judgment and Decree with the Hennepin County Recorder, which he could have done pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 507.26. However, a certified copy of the Judgment and Decree was recorded by Defendant Dannik Enterprises, Inc. ("Dannik") in connection with its efforts to redeem the Property, discussed infra.
Pursuant to the terms of the Judgment and Decree entered by the Hennepin County District Court, Defendant Brooks retained possession and title to the Property, subject to the Contract for Deed, and was to continue making the Brooks' monthly payments to Helgoe and Everson, subject to a formula lien in favor of Plaintiff. The Judgment and Decree also specified that Plaintiff was entitled to a one-half interest in the Property and would have first right to purchase the Property if Defendant Brooks was notified of possible foreclosure.
Following the Brooks' divorce, Defendant Brooks fell behind in the monthly payments to Defendants Helgoe and Everson. Defendant Brooks never informed Plaintiff of this delinquency. Defendants Helgoe and Everson defaulted on the first mortgage and foreclosure proceedings were instituted.
Defendant Brooks never notified Plaintiff of the foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff claims he did not become aware of the mortgage foreclosure until June 2003 when he looked at Hennepin County's online tax records.
Following the mortgage foreclosure, the Property was sold to Homeside Lending, Inc. ("Homeside") at a sheriff's sale on April 10, 2001. There is no information in the record specifying the amount Homeside paid for the Property. The six-month period of redemption, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 580.23, was set to expire on October 10, 2001.
On October 9, 2001, one day before the redemption period was set to expire, Defendant Brooks obtained three (3) mortgages on the Property. Defendant Dannik was one mortgagee. The other two mortgages were from Theresa Doran and Rosemary Witkowski, both friends of Defendant Brooks. On October 9, 2001, each of the three mortgagees also signed notices of intent to redeem. On October 10, 2001, Defendant Dannik recorded the three October 9th mortgages and notices of intent to redeem. The net effect was to extend the date of redemption by seven (7) days for each mortgage and notice of intent to redeem, or 21 days from October 10, 2001.
On November 1, 2001, after the expiration of the redemption period, Defendant Dannik purchased the Property from Homeside for $90,700.00.
On February 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed its original Summons and Complaint with the Court, alleging, inter alia, that Defendants Dannik and Brooks committed fraud against him and that Defendants Helgoe and Everson breached their contract with him by failing to make mortgage payments.
On February 22, 2005, Plaintiff personally served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Dannik. On March 22, 2005, Plaintiff personally served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Helgoe. On March 29, 2005, Plaintiff personally served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Everson. Plaintiff has never properly served Defendant Brooks in this case.
On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Summons and Complaint with an Affidavit of Service by Mail on Defendants Helgoe and Everson. Plaintiff did not state any new claims or allegations against Defendants Helgoe or Everson; the Complaint was amended only to correct pleading deficiencies with respect to the fraud claim against Defendants Dannik and Brooks.
On June 24, 2005, Defendant Dannik Enterprises, Inc. ("Dannik") filed a motion to dismiss, which this Court denied by Order filed October 25, 2005. The Memorandum of Law attached to the Court's Order, however, contained references to many legal procedures Plaintiff could have utilized to protect his interest in the Property.
Defendants Helgoe and Everson have not submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's original Complaint or Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff obtained a joint and several arbitration award against Defendants Dannik, Helgoe, and Everson for $34,500.00 "as calculated to be his ½ interest in the property in the Court Order of 6/1/05 . . . against the defendants, jointly and severally, excepting Theresa Brooks, who does not appear to have been properly served, and is not a proper party." The arbitration award also stated that Helgoe and Everson did not appear and, therefore, were in default.
On November 30, 2005, Dannik submitted a Request for a Trial De Novo After Arbitration, which vacated the entire arbitration award.
On February 14, 2006, Plaintiff dismissed his claims against Dannik. On February 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Helgoe and Everson, seeking damages in the amount of $100,774.37.
Minnesota's Rules of Civil Procedure provide for default judgment against a party as follows:
When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend within the time allowed therefor by these rules or by statute, and that fact is made to appear by affidavit, judgment by default shall be entered against that party as follows:
...
If the action is one for the recovery of money only, the court shall ascertain, by a reference or otherwise, the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled, and order judgment therefore.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.01 (2005); see also Doe v. Legacy Broadcasting of Minn., Inc., 504 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) ().
Defendants Helgoe and Everson are in default for want of an answer.
A party seeking default judgment has the burden of proving every essential element of its claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Hill v. Tischer, 385 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Plaintiff's only claim against Defendants Helgoe and Everson...
To continue reading
Request your trial