Keith A. Foor, II v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2017
• Docket: 64A03-1701-MF-149
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 31 2017, 8:35 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Keith A. Foor, II Nathan H. Blaske Hebron, Indiana Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP Cincinnati, Ohio

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Keith A. Foor, II, July 31, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 64A03-1701-MF-149 v. Appeal from the Porter Superior Court PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, The Honorable Mary R. Harper, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 64D05-1601-MF-120

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] PennyMac Loan Services, LLC filed a mortgage-foreclosure action against

Keith Foor II and then moved for summary judgment on all issues (including

on the counterclaims asserted by Foor). The trial court granted PennyMac’s

motion, and Foor appeals. Foor does not deny that he is in default for failing to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1701-MF-149 | July 31, 2017 Page 1 of 2 make mortgage payments. The only clear argument he raises on appeal is that

PennyMac failed to prove that it is in possession of the original promissory note

and that, therefore, it is not entitled to foreclose on the mortgage. We disagree.

One of PennyMac’s foreclosure-operations supervisors provided an affidavit in

which she stated that “PennyMac has been in continuous possession and/or

control of the original Note since prior to the filing of its Complaint in this

case,” Appellee’s App. Vol. II p. 72, and that a copy of the note was attached as

Exhibit A to the affidavit. Moreover, PennyMac’s attorney brought with him

to the summary-judgment hearing documents that he said were the original

note and mortgage. The trial court personally inspected the documents and

said, “I will tell you that the note and the mortgage that have been given to me

today appear to have original signatures on them.” Tr. p. 18. On appeal, Foor

has not directed us to any designated evidence that might have created a

genuine issue of material fact on that point, so we affirm the trial court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of PennyMac. See Ind. Trial Rule 56(C).1

[2] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.

1 Foor’s opening and reply briefs refer to other aspects of the case, such as his counterclaims, the affidavit of PennyMac’s foreclosure-operations supervisor, and discrepancies between certain documents relied upon by PennyMac. To the extent Foor was attempting to raise separate arguments relating to these issues, he has failed to develop them with cogent reasoning, citations to relevant legal authority, and/or citations to the record on appeal, as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Therefore, any such arguments are waived. Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362, 365 n.6 (Ind. 2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1701-MF-149 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 2