United States of America (Rural Development) v. Simon

CourtDistrict Court, Virgin Islands
DecidedMay 19, 2023
Docket1:19-cv-00035
StatusUnknown

This text of United States of America (Rural Development) v. Simon (United States of America (Rural Development) v. Simon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America (Rural Development) v. Simon, (vid 2023).

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) (RURAL DEVELOPMENT), ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 2019-0035 EDWIN SIMON AND GLORIA SIMON, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Attorney: Angela P. Tyson-Floyd, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Plaintiff United States of America (Rural Development)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Lewis, District Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff United States of America’s (Rural Development) (“United States”) “Motion for Default Judgment” against Defendants Edwin Simon and Gloria Simon (collectively, “the Simons”). (Dkt. No. 14). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the United States’ Motion for Default Judgment. I. BACKGROUND On August 12, 2019, the United States filed a Complaint for debt and foreclosure against the Simons. (Dkt. No. 1). The United States alleges that, on or about September 7, 1990, the Simons executed and delivered to the United States a Promissory Note (the “Note”) in which they promised to pay the principal sum of $81,500, plus interest at the rate of 9.00% per annum, in monthly installments beginning on April 7, 1991. Id. at ¶ 6. As security for payment on the Note, the Simons executed and delivered to the United States a Mortgage encumbering the property described as: Plot No. 117M, consisting of 0.25 U.S. acres, more or less, of The Whim Estates, West End Quarter, St. Croix, as more fully shown in P.W.D. Drawing No. 3171 dated May 21, 1974 as revised May 24, 1988.

(“the Property”) Id. at ¶ 7.1 Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the Simons also entered into a Subsidy Repayment Agreement with the United States, providing for the United States to recapture interest credits granted to the Simons upon foreclosure of the Mortgage. Id. at ¶ 8. The Complaint further alleges that the Simons are in default pursuant to the terms of the Note and the Mortgage because they failed to pay the monthly installment due on February 7, 2013 and all subsequent installments. Id. at ¶ 9. Consequently, and pursuant to the terms of the loan documents, the United States declared the entire amount of the indebtedness immediately due and payable and demanded payment. Id. at ¶ 10. As of the date of the Complaint, the default had not been cured. Id. at ¶ 11. On October 2, 2019, the Simons were personally served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9). Thereafter, on December 6, 2019, the Clerk of Court entered default against the Simons after they failed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12). On March 12, 2020, the United States filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment against the Simons. (Dkt. No. 14). In its Memorandum in Support of its Motion, the United States asserts that default judgment is appropriate against the Simons because: (1) the Simons signed the Note and Mortgage which is evidence of their debt owed to the United States and that they pledged the Property as security for the debt; and (2) the Note and Mortgage provide the authority for the United States to foreclose on the Property. (Dkt. No. 15 at 3).

1 The Complaint alleges that the Mortgage was recorded on September 12, 1990 with the St. Croix Office of the Recorder of Deeds. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7). The United States also avers that the procedural elements for default judgment against the Simons have been satisfied because the Simons received notice of the foreclosure action; the Simons failed to file an answer to the Complaint; and the Simons are not infants or incompetent persons, nor in active duty in any branch of the military service. Id. at 4. In addition, the United States asserts that it has satisfied the three factors for determining whether default judgment is

appropriate, as set forth in Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000).2 Id. Along with the Motion for Default Judgment, the United States included a “Declaration on the Certification of Government Records,” signed by Kimme R. Bryce, Area Director, Rural Development3, who attests that she has personal knowledge of the documents executed by the Simons, which are maintained as part of the United States’ business records. (Dkt. No. 16-3 at ¶ 2). Additionally, Ms. Bryce signed a Certificate of Indebtedness certifying that the indebtedness on the Simons’ Note is set forth on the Payoff Information Sheet, which itemizes how the interest and costs on the account were calculated. (Dkt. No. 16-4 at 2-3). Based on the information provided, the indebtedness to the United States as of February 28, 2020 includes a principal

balance of $41,816.01; accrued interest from September 20, 2013 through February 28, 2020 of $26,100.20; subsidy recapture of $665.67; fees of $20,804.52 (consisting of escrow fees for taxes and insurance of $20,604.52 and title search fees of $200.00); accrued interest on the fees of $3,284.81, for a total indebtedness of $95,389.49. Id. at 3. In addition, Ms. Bryce asserts that

2 The three Chamberlain factors that bear on whether a default judgment should be entered are: “(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether defendant’s delay is due to [defendant’s] culpable conduct.” J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ramsey, 757 F. App’x 93, 95 n.1 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 164).

3 Rural Development is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. $10.3108 in per diem interest continues to accrue on the principal balance and $5.1298 in per diem interest on the fees after February 28, 2020. Id. Counsel for the United States, Angela Tyson-Floyd, Esq., also provided a Declaration of Counsel in support of the United States’ Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 16-1). Attorney Tyson-Floyd attests that the Simons failed to file answers to the Complaint; the Simons are neither

infants nor incompetent persons; and the Simons are not members of the military as verified through the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center’s database. Id. On March 23, 2020, the United States filed a request for a 60-day stay due to a foreclosure moratorium for borrowers with USDA Single-Family Housing Direct loans in light of the COVID- 19 pandemic. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 19-1). After granting several extensions of the stay at the behest of the United States, the Magistrate Judge lifted the stay on September 1, 2021. (Dkt. No. 34). To date, the Simons have not responded to the United States’ Motion for Default Judgment. II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES When considering a motion for default judgment, the Court accepts as true any facts

contained in the pleadings regarding liability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). Legal conclusions, however, are not deemed admitted, nor is the extent or amount of damages claimed by a party. See Star Pacific Corp. v. Star Atl. Corp., 574 F. App’x 225, 231 (3d Cir. 2014); Service Employees Int’l Union Local 32BJ v. ShamrockClean, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 631, 635 (E.D. Pa. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). Parties are not entitled to an entry of default judgment as of right; instead, the matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Pieczenik v. Comm’r New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Protection, 715 F. App’x 205, 208-09 (3d Cir. 2017); Catanzaro v. Fischer, 570 F. App’x 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2014).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

World Entertainment Inc v. Andrea Brown
487 F. App'x 758 (Third Circuit, 2012)
Anthony Catanzaro v. Nora Fischer
570 F. App'x 162 (Third Circuit, 2014)
Star Pacific Corp. v. Star Atlantic Corp.
574 F. App'x 225 (Third Circuit, 2014)
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 32 BJ v. ShamrockClean, Inc.
325 F. Supp. 3d 631 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States of America (Rural Development) v. Simon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-rural-development-v-simon-vid-2023.