Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lockhaven Estates, LLC

Decision Date31 December 2012
Docket NumberNo. CV 11–0708 JB/ACT.,CV 11–0708 JB/ACT.
Citation918 F.Supp.2d 1209
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
PartiesFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for the Columbian Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHAVEN ESTATES, LLC, Vincent J. Garcia, Maria P. Garcia, LNV Corporation and Kurt Lambert, Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Stephen D. Ingram, Cavin & Ingram, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

Lockhaven Estates, LLC, Albuquerque, NM, Unrepresented by Counsel.

Vincent J. Garcia, Albuquerque, NM, Pro se Defendant.

William C. Salmon, Rhodes & Salmon, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant Martha P. Garcia.

Thomas D. Walker, Jacobvitz, Thuma & Walker, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant LVN Corporation.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the FDIC/Receiver's Motion for Default Judgment and Summary Judgment, filed Mar. 26, 2012 (Doc. 32)(Summary Judgment Motion). The Court held a hearing on August 1, 2012. The Primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for the Columbian Bank & Trust Company, has established that it is entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed facts establish that it is entitled to enforce the Note dated April 27, 2006 it holds executed by Defendant Lockhaven Estates, LLC, and the Unconditional Guaranty dated April 27, 2006 it holds executed by Defendants Vincent J. Garcia and Maria P. Garcia; (ii) whether the Defendants are precluded from asserting certain defenses against the FDIC, because they have not exhausted their administrative remedies; (iii) whether the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to grant Lockhaven Estates', V. Garcia's, and M. Garcia's requests for equitable relief against the FDIC's enforcement of its claims; (iv) whether Lockhaven Estates and V. Garcia have shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact that there is an agreement that modified the terms of the Note that the FDIC holds. The Court will grant in part and deny in part the FDIC's Summary Judgment Motion. The undisputed facts establish that the FDIC is entitled to enforce the Note and the Unconditional Guaranty in full against Lockhaven Estates and V. Garcia, and is entitled to foreclose on the properties securing the Mortgage. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101–73, 103 Stat. 183 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 12 U.S.C.) (“FIRREA”), and the plain language of the Loan Agreement, Note, Mortgage, and Unconditional Guaranty preclude all of the Defendants' affirmative defenses. Because the FDIC is entitled to proceed only in rem against M. Garcia, however, the Court will deny the FDIC's request to have a deficiency judgment entered in its favor should the foreclosure sale of the properties securing the mortgage be insufficient to cover the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties do not contest the facts.1 Lockhaven Estates entered into a Loan Agreement, filed Aug. 11, 2011 (Doc. 1–1), with The Columbian Bank & Trust Company for the purpose of refinancing and developing certain real property in Curry County, New Mexico. The Loan Agreement sets out the terms and conditions of the loan. See Memorandum ¶ 1, at 2 (setting forth this fact); Complaint for Foreclosure ¶ 9, at 2, filed Aug. 11, 2011 (Doc. 1) (“Complaint”) (setting forth this fact); Loan Agreement; Answer of Defendants Lockhaven Estates, LLC and Vincent J. Garcia to Complaint for Foreclosure ¶ 3, at 1, filed Oct. 12, 2011 (Doc. 13)(“Lockhaven Estates/V. Garcia Answer”) (admitting this fact); Affidavit of Gary Ellis in Support of FDIC's Motion for Default Judgment and Summary Judgment ¶ 2, at 1–2, filed Mar. 26, 2012 (Doc. 35)(“Ellis Affidavit”). Lockhaven Estates executed the Note in the principal sum of $1,800,000.00 with interest accruing at the initial rate of 11.25% in favor of Columbian Bank. The Note was payable in full on April 27, 2008. See Memorandum ¶ 2, at 2 (setting forth this fact); Complaint ¶¶ 10, 11, at 2–3; Note, filed Aug. 11, 2011 (Doc. 1–2); Lockhaven Estates/V. Garcia Answer to Complaint ¶ 3, at 1 (admitting this fact); Ellis Affidavit, ¶ 3, at 2. As security for payment of the Note, Lockhaven Estates executed a Mortgage dated April 27, 2006 in favor of Columbian Bank, covering the property situated in Curry County, New Mexico (“Property”), described as follows:

A TRACT IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4), SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH (T2N), RANGE THIRTY–FIVE EAST (R35E), N.M.P.M., CITY OF CLOVIS, CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 11, T2N, R35E, BEING 645.08 FEET N00°06'12?W FROM THE SW CORNER OF SECTION 11; THENCE N00°30'22?W 810.0 FEET; THENCE N89°46' 30?E 777.30 FEET; THENCE S00°30'22?W, 810.0 FEET; THENCE S89°46'19?W 768.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, NOW KNOWN AS LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH NINE (9) IN BLOCK FOUR (4), LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH EIGHTEEN (18) IN BLOCK FIVE (5), LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH EIGHTEEN (18) IN BLOCK SIX (6), LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH NINE (9) IN BLOCK SEVEN (7) AND LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH TWELVE (12) IN BLOCK EIGHT (8), LOCKHAVEN ESTATES UNIT NO. ONE (# 1), TO THE CITY OF CLOVIS, CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, as shown by the official recorded plat thereof

AND

THE FOLLOWING LOTS IN THE PIERCE ADDITION, UNIT NO. TWO (# 2), LOTS FIVE (5) THROUGH SEVENTEEN (17) IN BLOCK ONE (1); LOTS EIGHT (8) THROUGH THIRTEEN (13) IN BLOCK TWO (2); LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH TWENTY–SEVEN (27) IN BLOCK THREE (3); LOTS FIVE (5) THROUGH TEN (10) IN BLOCK FOUR (4); LOTS SIX (6) THROUGH TWELVE (12) IN BLOCK SIX (6); LOT TWO (2) IN BLOCK TEN (10); LOTS ONE (1) AND TWO (2) IN BLOCK ELEVEN (11); AND LOTS ONE (1) THROUGH FIVE (5) IN BLOCK TWELVE (12), TO THE CITY OF CLOVIS, CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, as shown by the official recorded plat thereof.

The Mortgage was recorded on April 27, 2006, as Document No. 600003210 at Book 458, Page 1559 of the Records of Curry County. See Memorandum ¶ 3, at 2–3 (setting forth this fact); Complaint ¶ 12, at 3–4 (setting forth this fact); Mortgage at 1–2, filed Aug. 11, 2011 (Doc. 1–3) (noting the filing date and time on the top of each page); Lockhaven Estates/V. Garcia Answer ¶ 3, at 1 (admitting this fact); Ellis Affidavit ¶ 4, at 2–3. The street addresses corresponding to the individual lots (the “Properties”) within the Property are as follows:

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Subdivision Addition Name      ¦Block No. ¦Lot No.   ¦Address               ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦1         ¦3909 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦2         ¦3905 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦3         ¦3901 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦4         ¦3833 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦5         ¦3829 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦6         ¦3825 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦7         ¦3821 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦8         ¦3817 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦9         ¦3813 Madison Road     ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦4         ¦Retention ¦3805 Madison Road     ¦
                ¦                               ¦          ¦pond      ¦                      ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦1         ¦3801 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦2         ¦3805 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦3         ¦3809 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦4         ¦3813 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦5         ¦3817 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦6         ¦3821 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦7         ¦3825 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦8         ¦3829 Lockhaven Drive  ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦9         ¦3621 Weston           ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦10        ¦3631 Weston           ¦
                +-------------------------------+----------+----------+----------------------¦
                ¦Lockhaven Estates Unit 1       ¦5         ¦11        ¦3828 Madison Road     ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Soriano v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Soriano), Case No. 15–14341–JDL
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • June 18, 2018
    ...the note; (3) the note became due and payable; and (4) defendant has not paid the amount due and owing. FDIC v. Lockhaven Estates, LLC , 918 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1233 (D. N.M. 2012) (citing, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. v. Wilson, 722 F.Supp.306, 309 (N.D.Tex.1989) ); See also, Green......
  • Bloom v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (In re First State Bancorporation)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Mexico
    • September 17, 2013
    ...with respect to the Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”) also applies to cases involving the FDIC. See FDIC v. Lockhaven Estates, LLC, 918 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1234 n. 5 (D.N.M.2012) ( “Although much of the FIRREA law cited refers to the RTC, because the FDIC has stepped into the RTC's role for ......
  • WAS, LLC v. Coll (In re DC Energy, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Mexico
    • August 5, 2016
    ...requires the non-moving party to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. F.D.I.C. v. Lockhaven Estates, LLC, 918 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1231 (D.N.M.2012) (citing Celotex ). Further, the party opposing summary judgment must “set forth specific facts showing that th......
  • Bloom v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (In re First State Bancorporation), 7-11-11916 JA
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Mexico
    • July 3, 2014
    ...of the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be asserted before a bankruptcy case is commenced. FDIC-R also cites Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lockhaven Estates, LLC, 918 F.Supp.2d 1209 (D.N.M. 2012) in support of its argument that affirmative defenses that could have been asserted as independent action......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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