Custer v. Homeside Lending, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 March 2003 |
Citation | 858 So.2d 233 |
Parties | Raymond CUSTER and Elizabeth Custer v. HOMESIDE LENDING, INC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., and W.A. Hopton-Jones, Jr., of Garrison, Scott, Gamble & Rosenthal, P.C., Birmingham; and Cecil G. Duffee III of Duffee & Associates, Birmingham, for appellants.
John E. Goodman of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Birmingham; and John C. Englander of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for appellee.
Raymond Custer and his wife, Elizabeth, sued Homeside Lending, Inc. ("Homeside"), the current holder of a mortgage on residential property owned by the Custers, as well as WNC Insurance Services, Inc. ("WNC"), an insurance provider, on November 5, 1999. WNC had entered into a "Policy of Insurance Contract" with Homeside whereby WNC would "force-place"1 flood insurance for certain Homeside borrowers. Pursuant to this agreement, WNC agreed to bind coverage on properties encumbered by Homeside mortgages, and, if needed, to force-place flood insurance with certain underwriters. WNC had also entered into a "Servicing Agreement" with Homeside pursuant to which WNC agreed to provide flood audit services2 and Homeside agreed to purchase from WNC flood insurance Homeside forced-placed on the mortgages it serviced.
The action was filed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23, Ala. R. Civ. P., on behalf of a class of persons who, within the six-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, had had a mortgage loan serviced by Homeside and had had flood insurance force-placed under a WNC policy in an amount that exceeded the outstanding balance of their loans. As finally amended, the Custers' complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages on claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraud by suppression, breach of a duty to a third-party beneficiary, and breach of an implied contract.
Homeside filed a motion for a summary judgment as to all claims with supporting evidentiary materials. The Custers filed a response and later filed a supplemental response. WNC then filed its own motion for a summary judgment, without opposition from the Custers, which the trial court granted.3 Thereafter, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of Homeside on all claims except the Custers' breach-of-express-contract claim and third-party-beneficiary claim, without stating its reasons for denying the summary-judgment motion as to those claims. Homeside then filed a "Motion for Reconsideration and Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment" on the breach-of-express-contract and third-party-beneficiary claims. Subsequently, the trial court reconsidered Homeside's summary-judgment motion and, again without stating a rationale, entered a summary judgment on the case action summary sheet in favor of Homeside as to those claims as well. The trial court also denied class certification of the Custers' claims. The Custers then appealed.
The record reveals that the Custers own a residence in Birmingham, Alabama, which they purchased in 1970, executing a purchase-money mortgage for $18,150 to Cobbs, Allen & Hall Mortgage Company, Inc. ("Cobbs, Allen & Hall"), located in Birmingham. The mortgage did not require the Custers to maintain flood insurance on the mortgaged property. However, the mortgage contained the following relevant provisions:
(Emphasis added.) The record also shows that Homeside's loan-servicing portfolio consists of loans it originated as well as loans it acquired from other entities, many of which date back to the 1970s. Thus, there is no single standard form mortgage in Homeside's portfolio.
The Custer loan was transferred several times to various mortgage-loan-servicing companies over the course of its life; it was transferred to Homeside in 1989. At Homeside, the Custer loan became subject to the audits of Homeside's loan portfolio designed to determine if any of the properties in the portfolio were within a special flood hazard area ("an SFHA"). In the case of the Custers' loan, WNC used the services of Z.C. Sterling Corporation ("Sterling"), a company that sometimes conducted independent audits on properties in Homeside's loan portfolio. Once Sterling determined that a Homeside property was within an SFHA, it would notify WNC electronically, and a "binder"4 would be issued, to be later converted into a policy. In accordance with the "Policy of Insurance Contract" WNC had with Homeside, WNC would provide a binder, and if necessary, place the force-placed flood insurance with certain underwriters. The flood insurance force-placed on the Custers' property was issued and bound pursuant to the "Policy of Insurance Contract" between Homeside and WNC. The "Servicing Agreement" between Homeside and WNC had no connection to the flood insurance that was force-placed on the Custers' property. As stated in the deposition of Ofelia Chuante, the senior vice president in charge of compliance, underwriting and claims for WNC, during the period between 1993 and 2000, WNC issued approximately 6,000 force-placed flood-insurance policies on properties encumbered by mortgages serviced by Homeside as a result of Sterling's audits.
Homeside executed a separate servicing agreement directly with Sterling, then known as American Sterling, on June 4, 1994.5 Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, Sterling notified WNC that the Custers' property was deemed to be within an SFHA so that a binder could be issued.6
Sterling sent notification letters to the Custers in April, May, and June 1999. The April 1999 letter, written on Homeside letterhead and as required by the National Flood Insurance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq. ("the NFIA"),7 stated, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis in original.)
The Custers received a second letter, also written on Homeside letterhead, regarding flood insurance in May 1999; that letter stated, in relevant part:
(Boldface in original.) The letter also contained a section that stated "Required Flood Insurance Amount: $79,000."
Thereafter, the Custers contacted their insurance agent in an effort to procure flood insurance. However, as Ms. Custer testified in her deposition, the agent failed to procure the requested insurance within the 60-day time limit set by Homeside in its April 1999 letter to the Custers.
In late June 1999, the Custers received a third letter written on Homeside letterhead; that letter stated that Homeside had procured flood insurance on the Custers' property as required by the mortgage agreement and by federal law.9 The letter explained that Homeside had procured flood insurance on the mortgaged property in the amount of $79,000; that the annual premium was $667; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kolbe v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP
...is not embraced by a reference to “any hazards” would be considerably less potent. That was the situation in Custer v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 858 So.2d 233 (Ala.2003), on which the district court relied in rejecting the ambiguity of the language in Kolbe's mortgage.11 The explicit attentio......
-
Unum Life Ins. Co. of America v. Wright
...construction that "`[a] statute must be considered as a whole and every word in it made effective if possible.'" Custer v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 858 So.2d 233, 245 (Ala.2003), quoting Alabama State Bd. of Health v. Chambers County, 335 So.2d 653, 654-55 (Ala.1976); see also McCausland v. ......
-
Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
...embraced by a reference to “any hazards” would be considerably less potent. That was the situation in Custer v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 858 So.2d 233 (Ala.2003), on which the district court relied in rejecting the ambiguity of the language in Kolbe's mortgage.11 The explicit attention to fl......
-
McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
...coverage. Id. at 7, 9-10 (citing Hayes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 2006 WL 3193743, at *4 (E.D. La. 2006); Custer v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 858 So.2d 233, 246 (Ala. 2003); Gibson v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 2011 WL 6319401, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2011); Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards; ......