Waleed Mourad v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Owner Trustee for Rcaf Acquisition Trust for Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

Opinion

RENDERED: JULY 2, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0276-MR

WALEED MOURAD APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-02064

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE FOR RCAF ACQUISITION TRUST FOR SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC APPELLEE

OPINION DISMISSING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, KAREM, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: This is a foreclosure case. Appellant is Waleed Mourad

(“Mourad”). Appellee is U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Owner Trustee for RCAF Acquisition Trust for

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (“U.S. Bank”).

The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank on

its foreclosure claims and directed Mourad to pay $96,000.00 within seven days to

avoid an order of sale. Mourad timely paid the $96,000.00, and the court ordered

the mortgage lien released. U.S. Bank subsequently moved to dismiss the action in

circuit court, and the court granted dismissal without objection. The appeal is

taken from the circuit court’s February 18, 2025, order denying Mourad’s motion

for reconsideration. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

In his pro se brief, Mourad argues the trial court erred by accepting an

unexplained increase of nearly $10,000 in the payoff amount and enforcing

$15,101.57 in disputed charges without documentation. He further asserts that

U.S. Bank lacks standing and that he is entitled to restitution and interest.

U.S. Bank asserts: 1) Mourad’s arguments were not preserved because

they were not properly presented to the circuit court; 2) the appeal is moot because

Mourad voluntarily paid the $96,000.00 and the case was dismissed; and 3)

summary judgment was proper because U.S. Bank supported its motion with loan

and mortgage documentation while Appellant failed to present any evidence to

overcome summary judgment.

-2- “Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the

existence of any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate court need not defer

to the trial court’s decision and will review the issue de novo.” Lewis v. B&R

Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App. 2001) (citation omitted). With this standard

in mind, we return to record and law at issue here.

As previosuly mentioned, Mourad paid the $96,000.00 to have the

lien released, the court ordered the lien released, and the underlying case was

dismissed without objection. Accordingly, the relief Appellant now seeks would

have no effect on the already released lien and dismissed case. The appeal is

therefore moot.1

Even if the issues here were not moot, the record supports the circuit

court’s judgment. U.S. Bank provided affidavits and loan records. In contrast,

Appellant does not appear to have presented affirmative evidence disputing the

material facts or U.S. Bank’s entitlement to a judgment. Instead, the dispute is the

amount ordered. Yet, Mourad ultimately paid the lien amount and attendant

assesments pursuant to the court’s judgment without reservation or preservation of

1 The Court previously issued an order to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. On September 9, 2025, an order was entered finding sufficient cause. However, we are not bound by such preliminary decisions. Commonwealth Bank & Tr. Co. v. Young, 361 S.W.3d 344, 350 (Ky. App. 2012) (“This Court retains authority to review decisions on motion panel that do not finally dispose of the case when the case is considered by a full- judge panel to which it is assigned.”).

-3- a legal claim that could be subject to redress before this Court on appeal. For the

foregoing reasons, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Waleed Mourad, pro se Blake Embry Lexington, Kentucky Columbus, Ohio

-4-