Elena Ruzicka v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
This text of 705 F. App'x 473 (Elena Ruzicka v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Minnesota resident Elena Ruzicka appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity action challenging the legality of the foreclosure and sheriffs sale of her home. Upon de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirm. Specifically, we agree with the district court that Ruzicka’s evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Chase’s compliance with Minn. Stat. § 580.041, subd. lb, which requires that the mortgage-holder deliver a specified foreclosure-advice notice with every written communication to the mortgagor, up to the time of a foreclosure sale. We also agree with the district court that Ruz-icka could not prevail on her breach-of-contract claim, as the summary judgment record would not permit the conclusion that Chase’s alleged breach of the mortgage agreement caused Ruzicka to suffer any economic damages that would not have otherwise occurred. See Gen. Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., 703 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we deny the pending motion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
705 F. App'x 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elena-ruzicka-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-ca8-2017.