Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lockhaven Estates, LLC
| Decision Date | 31 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 11–0708 JB/ACT.,CV 11–0708 JB/ACT. |
| Citation | 918 F.Supp.2d 1209 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
| Parties | FEDERAL 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.
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 () (“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.
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 (); 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)( ) (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 (); 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
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 (); Complaint ¶ 12, at 3–4 (); Mortgage at 1–2, filed Aug. 11, 2011 (Doc. 1–3) (); 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soriano v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Soriano), Case No. 15–14341–JDL
...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)
...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)
...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
...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......