Huertas v. Ward

• Decision Date: 27 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2929, Sept. Term, 2018,2929, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 241 A.3d 1,248 Md.App. 187
• Parties: Pablo HUERTAS, et ux. v. Carrie M. WARD, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

248 Md.App. 187

241 A.3d 1

Pablo HUERTAS, et ux.

v.Carrie M. WARD, et al.

No. 2929, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

October 27, 2020

Submitted by Pablo Huertas & Elsa Huertas, Olney, MD, Pro Se for Appellant.

Submitted by Emily M. Petterson, Melissa O. Martinez(McGuireWoods LLP, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Graeff, Arthur, Charles E. Moylan, Jr.(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Arthur, J.

This case involves a series of unsuccessful attempts to prevent a residential foreclosure.After the foreclosure sale, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County overruled a homeowner's exceptions and ratified the sale of the property.

The homeowner appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in denying his requests to prevent the foreclosure sale and its ratification.The substitute trustees have moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the order ratifying the foreclosure sale is not an appealable order.Alternatively, the substitute trustees argue that the circuit court's rulings were correct, and thus that the judgment should be affirmed.

For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we shall deny the motion to dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.Initial Foreclosure Proceedings Under the Deed of Trust

On September 21, 2004, Bank of America, N.A., extended a loan to Pablo Huertas and Elsa Huertas.The loan was secured by a lien on their residence in Olney, Maryland.Mr. and Mrs. Huertas signed a promissory note and a deed of trust, which was recorded in the land records of Montgomery County.

The deed of trust included a power-of-sale provision, authorizing a trustee to sell the property in the event of a default under the terms of the promissory note.The deed of trust authorized Bank of America, "at its option, from time to time," to replace the named trustee with one or more successor trustees.

In January of 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Huertas stopped making monthly payments due under the promissory note.Several months later, a group of substitute trustees(none of whom are parties to this case) initiated an action to foreclose on the property.The docket entries from that case indicate that a bankruptcy petition by Mr. or Mrs. Huertas resulted in a lengthy stay of the foreclosure proceedings.At the trustees’ request, the court dismissed that case without prejudice in July of 2011.

Two years later, an officer of Bank of America executed a deed appointing Carrie Ward and five other persons as substitute trustees under the deed of trust.On April 17, 2014, the substitute trustees initiated a foreclosure action by filing an order to docket in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.The exhibits to the order to docket included copies of the deed of trust, the promissory note, and the deed appointing the substitute trustees, along with affidavits affirming that those copies were true and accurate.In affidavits, officers of Bank of America affirmed that Federal National Mortgage Association was the "owner of the debt instrument," that Bank of America was the "servicer of the loan," and that the substitute trustees had "the right to foreclose."

B.Counterclaim in the Foreclosure Action

On May 7, 2014, Mr. and Mrs. Huertas, representing themselves, filed a pleading titled "Revised Counter Complaint to the Order of Docket Suit."Although they styled their pleading as a counterclaim, they did not demand damages from any defendant.Rather, they requested various documents and information, including the "original note,""proof of assignment ... from the secured parties," the "legal authorization" of the Bank of America officer who had appointed the substitute trustees, a "validation of loss," and a "validation of debt."They requested "an evidentiary hearing or jury trial to address" what they called "these fraudulent matters."

Upon the filing of the counterclaim, the court filed an administrative order informing the parties that it would sever the counterclaim from the foreclosure case and that the counterclaim would proceed under a separate case number.The defendants in that separate case moved for dismissal, and no response was filed.The court granted the motion to dismiss on December 29, 2014.Mr. and Mrs. Huertas filed no notice of appeal in that case.

Meanwhile, in the foreclosure case, the substitute trustees moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that it did not set forth any cognizable cause of action.Alternatively, the substitute trustees treated the counterclaim as a motion to stay the sale of the property and to dismiss the foreclosure action under Md. Rule 14-211.The substitute trustees argued that the pleading did not satisfy the formal requirements of that rule because it was not under oath or supported by affidavit.¹The substitute trustees asked the court to deny Mr. and Mrs. Huertas's requests for relief without a hearing, arguing that the pleading did not state with particularity the basis of any valid defense in the foreclosure action.

For nearly three years, the court made no ruling regarding the counterclaim in the foreclosure case.During that time, Mrs. Huertas petitioned for bankruptcy relief.The substitute trustees filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, notifying the circuit court that the bankruptcy petition resulted in an automatic stay of the foreclosure case.The bankruptcy court eventually dismissed the bankruptcy case and terminated the automatic stay.The substitute trustees duly filed a notice informing the circuit court that the bankruptcy court had terminated the stay.Mr. and Mrs. Huertas then moved to strike that notice.

On May 8, 2017, the circuit court granted the substitute trustees’ motion to dismiss the counterclaim and denied all relief sought in the counterclaim.One week later, the court denied the motion to strike the notice of termination of the automatic stay.The combined effect of these rulings allowed the substitute trustees to proceed with the foreclosure sale.

C.Mr. Huertas's Additional Efforts to Prevent the Foreclosure Sale

In the months that followed, Mr. Huertas made a series of attempts to prevent the sale of the property.²First, he moved to dismiss the foreclosure action based on what he called an "element of fraud."The court denied that motion.Mr. Huertas then moved to "strike, set aside, and vacate" the order denying his motion to dismiss the foreclosure action.The court denied that motion.Mr. Huertas then made a second motion for reconsideration.

Eventually, the substitute trustees sent a notice informing Mr. and Mrs. Huertas that an auction for sale of the property would occur on September 21, 2018.Two days before the scheduled auction, Mr. Huertas moved to "vacate and stop" the notice of impending foreclosure sale.Mr. Huertas also filed a line informing the circuit court that he had filed an "emergency" petition in the Court of Appeals, seeking an injunction to prevent the sale.The Court of Appeals denied the emergency petition on the day that it was filed.

Despite Mr. Huertas's objections, the auction proceeded as scheduled.The substitute trustees sold the property to U.S. Bank National Association.The substitute trustees filed a report of sale and affidavit affirming that the sale had been fairly made.

On October 19, 2018, the circuit court entered an order denying Mr. Huertas's second motion for reconsideration.In the same order, the court denied "as moot" his other pending motions, including the motion to "vacate and stop" the notice of impending foreclosure sale.Within 30 days of the entry of that order, Mr. Huertas filed his first notice of appeal.

D.Ratification of the Foreclosure Sale

After the court informed Mr. Huertas of his right to file exceptions, he made a motion "in vigorous opposition" to ratification of the sale.Among other things, he asserted that the auction was a "sham" and that the substitute trustees had submitted "forged" documents throughout the case.The circuit court treated the motion as his exceptions to the sale and scheduled an exceptions hearing.Shortly before the hearing, Mr. Huertas made another motion, asking the court to "strike" the auction at which the property had been sold.

The court heard arguments from Mr. Huertas and counsel for the substitute trustees at the exceptions hearing on January 7, 2019.At the end of the hearing, the court concluded that Mr. Huertas had not demonstrated any basis for setting aside the foreclosure sale.

After the hearing, the circuit court entered an order overruling Mr. Huertas's exceptions, denying his other pending motions, and ratifying the foreclosure sale.In the same order, the court referred the matter to an auditor to determine the distribution of proceeds from the sale.

Within 30 days after the entry of that order, Mr. Huertas filed his second notice of appeal.The present case arises from his first and second notices of appeal.

E.Developments During Pendency of This Appeal

Shortly after Mr. Huertas filed his second notice of appeal, the auditor filed a report with the court.Mr. Huertas filed exceptions to that report.The court overruled his exceptions and ratified the auditor's report.Mr. Huertas moved to vacate the order ratifying the auditor's report, and the court denied his motion.No party appealed from the order ratifying the auditor's report or from the order refusing to vacate that order.

Meanwhile, the purchaser, U.S. Bank, moved for a judgment awarding it possession of the property.Mr. Huertas opposed that motion.After a hearing, the court granted U.S. Bank's motion.Mr. Huertas then filed a third notice of appeal.He also moved to alter or amend the order awarding possession to U.S. Bank.The court denied that motion, prompting him to file a fourth notice of appeal.

The third and fourth notices of appeal resulted in a separate case in this Court, No. 816, September Term 2019.This Court dismissed that appeal on November 18, 2019, based on Mr. Huertas's...