Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC v. Riley (In re Riley)

Decision Date25 September 2012
Docket NumberBankruptcy No. 09–04740–DD.,Adversary No. 11–80115–DD.
Citation478 B.R. 736
CourtU.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
PartiesIn re, Charles E. RILEY, Debtor. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, servicer for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005–NC1 Asset Backed Pass–Through Certificates, Plaintiff, v. Charles E. Riley, W. Ryan Hovis, Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Brian L. Boger, Law Offices of Brian L. Boger, Eddye L. Lane, Columbia, SC, for Debtor.

D. Randolph Whitt, Columbia, SC, for Plaintiff.

Brian L. Boger, Law Offices of Brian L. Boger, Columbia, SC, for Defendants.

W. Ryan Hovis, Rock Hill, SC, pro se.

ORDER

DAVID R. DUNCAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the adversary complaint filed by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, servicer for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005–NC1 Asset Backed Pass–Through Certificates (Plaintiff) on July 13, 2011 against Charles E. Riley (Defendant Riley) and W. Ryan Hovis (Trustee), seeking an order allowing its claims and determining that Plaintiff's claimed security interest in real property and insurance proceeds is valid and has priority over Defendant Riley's exemption claim and Trustee's interest. Defendant Riley filed an answer and counterclaim for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act on August 29, 2011. Trustee filed an answer on October 3, 2011. Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant Riley's counterclaim on September 22, 2011. The Court entered an initial scheduling order on October 17, 2011. After numerous motions,1 extensions of discoverydeadlines, and amendments to the parties' pleadings, a trial was held on July 24, 2012. The Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In December 2004, Defendant Riley and Tessa Spigner executed and delivered two notes and mortgages to New Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”). 2 The mortgaged property was Defendant Riley's residential property located at 34 Crossbow Lakes Court, Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Spigner has an interest in the real property but is not otherwise involved in these proceedings. New Century filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy case on April 2, 2007 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware. In October 2007, New Century assigned the notes and mortgages to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005–NC1 Asset Backed Pass–Through Certificates (Deutsche Bank), and the assignments were recorded on October 30, 2007, and November 13, 2007, respectively.3

The mortgages executed by Defendant Riley and Ms. Spigner required them to maintain insurance on the property. However, the mortgagors failed to do so, and effective July 17, 2007, Plaintiff, as it was permitted to do under the terms of the mortgages, obtained an insurance policy on the residence through Safeco Insurance (“Safeco”).4 Defendant Riley purchased a casualty insurance policy from Nationwide Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) on July 23, 2007. Plaintiff was listed as a loss payee on the Nationwide policy. On August 1, 2007, a fire destroyed the residence. On August 9, 2007, Plaintiff cancelled the Safeco policy and subsequently requested that Safeco retroactively adjust the cancellation date to July 23, 2007, the effective date of the Nationwide insurance policy purchased by Defendant Riley.5

Defendant Riley and Ms. Spigner's first mortgage with New Century contains the following clause relating to insurance:

5. Property insurance.

Borrower shall keep the improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the Property insured against loss by fire, hazards included within the term “extended coverage,” and any other hazards including, but not limited to, earthquakes and floods, for which Lender requires insurance. This insurance shall be maintained in the amounts (including deductible levels) and for the periods that Lender requires. What Lender requires pursuant to the preceding sentences can change during the term of the Loan. The insurance carrier providing the insurance shall be chosen by Borrower subject to Lender's right to disapprove Borrower's choice, which right shall not be exercised unreasonably.

...

If Borrower fails to maintain any of the coverages described above, Lender may obtain insurance coverage, at Lender's option and Borrower's expense. Lender is under no obligation to purchase any particular type or amount of coverage. Therefore, such coverage shall cover Lender, but might or might not protect Borrower, Borrower's equity in the Property, or the contents of the Property, against any risk, hazard or liability and might provide greater or lesser coverage than was previously in effect. Borrower acknowledges that the cost of the insurance coverage so obtained might significantly exceed the cost of insurance that Borrower could have obtained. Any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 5 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.

All insurance policies required by Lender and renewals of such policies shall be subject to Lender's right to disapprove such policies, shall include a standard mortgage clause, and shall name Lender as mortgagee and/or as an additional loss payee. Lender shall have the right to hold the policies and renewal certificates. If Lender requires, Borrower shall promptly give to Lender all receipts of paid premiums and renewal notices. If Borrower obtains any form of insurance coverage, not otherwise required by Lender, for damage to, or destruction of, the Property, such policy shall include a standard mortgage clause and shall name Lender as mortgagee and/or as an additional loss payee.

In the event of loss, Borrower shall give prompt notice to the insurance carrier and Lender. Lender may make proof of loss if not made promptly by Borrower. Unless Lender and Borrower otherwise agree in writing, any insurance proceeds, whether or not the underlying insurance was required by Lender, shall be applied to restoration or repair of the Property, if the restoration or repair is economically feasible and Lender's security is not lessened. During such repair and restoration period, Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such Property to ensure the work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction, provided that such inspection shall be undertaken promptly. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable law requires interest to be paid on such insurance proceeds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such proceeds. Fees for public adjusters, or other third parties, retained by Borrower shall not be paid out of the insurance proceeds and shall be the sole obligation of Borrower. If the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's security would be lessened, the insurance proceeds shall be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. Such insurance proceeds shall be applied in the order provided for in Section 2.

If Borrower abandons the Property, Lender may file, negotiate and settle any available insurance claim and related matters. If Borrower does not respond within 30 days to a notice from Lender that the insurance carrier has offered to settle a claim, then Lender may negotiate and settle the claim. The 30–day period will begin when the notice is given. In either event, or if Lender acquires the Property under Section 22 or otherwise, Borrower hereby assigns to Lender (a) Borrower's rights to any insurance proceeds in an amount not to exceed the amounts unpaid under the Note or this Security Instrument, and (b) any other of Borrower's rights (other than the right to any refund of unearned premiums paid by Borrower) under all insurance policies covering the Property, insofar as such rights are applicable to the coverage of the Property. Lender may use the insurance proceeds either to repair or restore the Property or to pay amounts unpaid under the Note or this Security Instrument, whether or not then due.

Plaintiff's Exhibit B. The second mortgage states:

5. Hazard Insurance

Borrower shall keep the improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the Property insured against loss by fire, hazards included within the term “extended coverage,” and such other hazards as Lender may require and in such amounts and for such periods as Lender may require.

The insurance carrier providing the insurance shall be chosen by Borrower subject to approval by Lender; provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. All insurance policies and renewals thereof shall be in a form acceptable to Lender and shall include a standard mortgage clause in favor of and in a form acceptable to Lender. Lender shall have the right to hold the policies and renewals thereof, subject to the terms of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security agreement with a lien which has priority over this Mortgage.

In the event of loss, Borrower shall give prompt notice to the insurance carrier and Lender. Lender may make proof of loss if not made promptly by Borrower. If the Property is abandoned by Borrower, or if Borrower fails to respond to Lender within 30 days from the date notice is mailed by Lender to Borrower that the insurance carrier offers to settle a claim for insurance benefits, Lender is authorized to collect and apply the insurance proceeds at Lender's option either to restoration or repair...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • In re Reed
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • May 14, 2013
  • In re Reed, Case No. 12-30049
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • May 14, 2013
  • Robbins v. Dyck O'Neal, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • March 20, 2020
  • Bampoky v. Daubert Law Firm, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • March 22, 2021
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Discharge Of Debts: The Potential Unintended Consequences Of Issuing A Form 1099-C
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 13, 2015
    ...163, 168 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011); In re Zilka, 407 B R. 684, 689 (Bankr: W.D. Penn. 2009); Carrington Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Riley, 478 B.R. 736, 744 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2012); and Sims v. Commissioner, 2002 Tax Summary LEXIS 78, 2002 WL 1825373, at *2 (T.C. Summ. Op. 2002-76, June 26, 2002).......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT