Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Estate of Rowe
| Decision Date | 21 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,489-CA.,51,489-CA. |
| Citation | 224 So.3d 1152 |
| Parties | COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant v. ESTATE OF Iree Sterling Mims ROWE aka Iree S. Rowe, Defendant–Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
SEALE, SMITH, ZUBER & BARNETTE, By: Jessica Chapman, McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC, By: Stephen W. Rider, Melissa H. Harris, Mark James Chaney, III, Counsel for Appellant, Bank of New York Mellon
STEMMANS & ALLEY, By: Jennifer E. Frederickson, W. Michael Stemmans, M. Todd Alley, Michael J. Taffaro, Counsel for Appellee, Heirs of William D. Rowe
CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL & MARVIN, By: John C. Campbell Counsel for Appellees, Estate of Iree S. Mims
Before MOORE, GARRETT, and STONE, JJ.
Bank of New York Mellon appeals a judgment that found that it abandoned its executory process suit against the named heirs of William D. Rowe, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. We affirm the dismissal, but amend it to be without prejudice.
In 2003, Iree Rowe and her husband, William D. Rowe, took out a home equity line of credit with MBNA America, with a limit of $51,300. They executed a multiple indebtedness mortgage affecting their home, described as Lot 2 , Boucher Subdivision, Cullen, La.1 The mortgage included a confession of judgment, acceleration clause and other provisions associated with executory process. Within a month, MBNA indorsed the mortgage package to Countrywide Home Loans.
William Rowe died in December 2004, and Iree died in January 2005. The mortgage fell into arrears.
On February 8, 2008, Countrywide filed this petition for executory process against "the Estate of Iree Sterling Mims Rowe, aka Iree S. Rowe," alleging that Iree had died and no succession had been opened.2 It recited the essentials for executory process and prayed for seizure and sale of Lot 2 , Boucher Subdivision. The writ issued and the sheriff filed notice on February 27.
On June 25, 2008, a curator filed an answer on behalf of Iree's heirs. He recited that he was trying to contact them, and generally denied all of Countrywide's allegations.
On January 15, 2010, someone identified only as Kathryn Talbot filed a "notarial act of correction" in the Webster Parish mortgage records. This recited that the original mortgage documents actually intended to encumber Lot 2, less and except the north 10 feet thereof , Boucher Subdivision. This document was filed only in the mortgage records, not in the suit record.
On May 4, 2011, someone identified only as "from the foreclosure department" faxed a letter to the sheriff's office, asking to stop the scheduled foreclosure "so that we may amend the petition to reflect the correct legal description of the property." The procès-verbal, issued the same day, described Lot 1 and the north 10 feet of Lot 2 , Boucher Subdivision, with an assessed value of only $1,500. However, no sale took place.
On December 5, 2012, Countrywide filed a supplemental and amended petition for executory process. This cited the notarial act of correction, filed January 15, 2010, and requested seizure and sale of Lot 1 and the north 10 feet of Lot 2 , Boucher Subdivision. An ad hoc judge signed the order of seizure and sale the same day.
On January 29, 2013, Lula B. Cornelius, the administratrix of Iree's succession, filed a petition to arrest the seizure and sale. She showed that the original mortgage referred to Lot 2 , but that Countrywide was now trying to seize more property, Lot 1 and the north 10 feet of Lot 2 ; that the person who filed the notarial act of correction, Ms. Talbot, had no apparent connection to the original mortgage; and that the correction was much more than the "clerical error" allowed by statute, R.S. 35:2.1. A rule was set for March 3, but no one appeared for it.
On August 13, 2013, Countrywide filed a motion to substitute Bank of New York Mellon ("BNY") as plaintiff, as BNY had acquired the mortgage note. On September 16, BNY filed a motion to convert the matter to an ordinary proceeding.
In a second supplemental and amending petition, BNY admitted its "inadvertence and error" in the original property description, alleging that the debtors had really intended to encumber Lots 1 and 2 , Boucher Subdivision, and named as defendants Loretha R. Pointer and other heirs of William Rowe ("the William Rowe heirs").
The William Rowe heirs promptly filed a motion to dismiss for abandonment, La. C. C. P. art. 561. They alleged that no step in the prosecution or defense had occurred for over three years, from June 25, 2008, when Iree's curator filed an answer, until August 15, 2012, when Countrywide filed a motion to substitute counsel.3 The district court signed, that very day, an ex parte order dismissing BNY's claims against the William Rowe heirs, with prejudice.
BNY filed a "motion for amendment of judgment and motion to set aside dismissal." It conceded that the property description had expanded from Lot 2 (in the act of mortgage and original petition) to Lot 1 and the north 10 feet of Lot 2 (in the notarial act of correction and first supplemental and amended petition) to Lots 1 and 2 (in the second supplemental and amended petition). However, it argued that code articles about abandonment do not apply to executory process, citing Greater New Orleans Homestead Ass'n v. Bell , 219 La. 41, 52 So.2d 241 (1951) ; that the notarial act of correction was a step in the prosecution; and that Art. 561 must always be construed in favor of maintaining the suit. Alternatively, it argued that any dismissal for abandonment should be presumptively without prejudice.
The William Rowe heirs opposed the motion, arguing that dismissal with prejudice, though rare, is within the court's discretion; that Bell relied on an article in the former Code of Practice, which had been repealed, and the current law, La. C. C. P. art. 561, makes no exception for executory proceedings; that BNY converted the matter to ordinary process, and could not argue any benefit of executory process; and that the notarial act of correction exceeded the statutory authority to correct a "clerical error" and was without legal effect.
After a hearing limited to argument, a different judge of the 26th JDC rendered an opinion denying the motion to amend or set aside the judgment.4
BNY took this devolutive appeal, raising four assignments of error.
By its first assignment of error, BNY urges that Art. 561 does not apply to this, an executory proceeding. It argues that in executory process, once the trial court has issued a writ of seizure, the court process is complete and there is nothing left to abandon. In support, it cites, generally, La. C. C. P. arts. 2631 – 2644, and specifically, the official revision comment to Art. 2638, and urges the rule is confirmed in Greater New Orleans Homestead, supra. It contends that a writ of seizure pursuant to a confession of judgment in a mortgage is a final judgment, which cannot be abandoned. BNY concedes that it converted the matter to an ordinary proceeding, but argues that this was after the alleged abandonment occurred, so the current status of the case is irrelevant.
Abandonment is regulated by La. C. C. P. art. 561, which provides, in pertinent part:
A "step" in the prosecution or defense of an action is any formal action intended to hasten the matter to judgment. James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of La. , 2001-2056 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 335 ; Stephens v. Stephens , 48,957 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/9/14), 137 So.3d 1242. Abandonment of an action is not a punitive concept, but a balancing concept. It balances two equally sound, competing policy considerations: the desire to see every litigant have his day in court, and not lose this by some technical carelessness or unavoidable delay; and the legislative purpose that suits, once filed, should not indefinitely linger, preserving stale claims from the normal extinguishing operation of prescription. Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 2000-3010 (La. 5/15/01), 785 So.2d 779 ; Hibernia Nat'l Bank v. Aero–Mech Inc. , 50,608 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/3/16), 215 So.3d 350. Art. 561 is to be liberally construed in favor of maintaining a plaintiff's suit. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers , LLC , 2011-0912 (La. 12/6/11), 79 So.3d 978 ; Hibernia Nat'l Bank v. Aero–Mech, supra.
By its plain terms, Art. 561 applies to any action except certain succession proceedings. It contains no exception for executory proceedings. Abandonment plainly applies to executory proceedings. Nationstar Mortg. , LLC v. Harris , 2013-1335 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/14/14), 141 So.3d 829. BNY's contention to the contrary lacks merit.
BNY's more subtle argument is that once the trial court issues a writ of seizure, the court process is complete; there is nothing left to abandon. In support, it cites the official revision comment to La. C. C. P. art. 2638 :
In the absence of any injunction to arrest the seizure and sale, the order rendered by the court directing the seizure and sale of the property is the only action taken by the court in an executory proceeding. It is the closest analogy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Louis
...basis of res judicata, and are therefore presumptively to be dismissed without prejudice. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., v. Estate of Rowe, 51,489 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So.3d 1152, 1160. In this case, the trial court signed an order on June 26, 2019, dismissing the matter as "abando......
-
Anthem Bank & Tr. v. Nickroo
...proceeding was complete. The concept of abandonment can apply to executory proceedings. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Estate of Rowe, 51,489 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So. 3d 1152, 1157. Thus, until there is a sale of the property, the abandonment articles continue to apply, and the......
-
Martin v. Nat'l City Mortg. Co.
...to judgment. James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of La. , 2001-2056 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 335 ; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Estate of Rowe , 51,489 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So.3d 1152. Actions taken by courts do not interrupt the abandonment period because they are not actions in th......
-
Singleton v. Singleton
... ... claiming that his Camaro was stolen from his home. He stated that he "had to" file the police ... ...