Wilfredo Valdes Morales v. EMI Equity Mortgage Inc.

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: October 18, 2017
• Docket: 16-00166
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

4 IN RE: CASE NO. 11-04694 BKT 5 6 WILFREDO VALDES MORALES Chapter 13

7 Adversary No. 16-00166 8 9 Debtor(s)

10 WILFREDO VALDES MORALES 11

12 Plaintiff 13 vs.

14 EMI EQUITY MORTGAGE INC 15 16 Defendant(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 10/18/2017 17 18 19 OPINION & ORDER 20 Before the court is Plaintiff/Debtor Wilfredo Valdes Morales’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion 21 Requesting Determination of Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 55]. The motion was tardily 22 23 opposed by the Defendant EMI Equity Mortgage, Inc. (“EMI”), and the same was stricken by Order 24 of the court [see, Dkt. No’s 65, 66, 67 and 68]. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s 25 Motion Requesting Determination of Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

The role of summary judgment is to look behind the facade of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether a trial is required. Under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 56(c), made applicable in bankruptcy by Fed. R. Bankr. P., Rule 7056, a summary judgment is available if 1 the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 2 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 3 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano- 4 5 Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010). As to issues on which the movant, at trial, would be compelled 6 to carry the burden of proof, it must identify those portions of the pleadings which it believes 7 8 demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact. In re Edgardo Ryan Rijos & Julia E. 9 Cruz Nieves v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya & Citibank, 263 B.R. 382, 388 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2001). 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not embrace default judgment principles.1 Even 11 when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the court is not relieved of its duty to decide 12 13 whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Likewise, the court must still assess 14 whether the moving party has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of 15 material fact. In an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court is still obliged to consider 16 17 18 19 20

21 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course of litigation. It tracks the ancient common law axiom that a default is an admission of all 22 well-pleaded allegations against the defaulting party. See generally B. Finberg, Annotation, Necessity 23 of Taking Proof as to Liability Against Defaulting Defendant, 8 A.L.R.3d 1070 (1966). Other default provisions embrace that same philosophy. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a) (failure to appear and defend 24 in response to a summons "will result in a judgment by default against the defendant for the relief 25 demanded in the complaint"); cf. Fed. R .Civ. P. 16(f) (failure to attend pretrial conference); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (failure to obey discovery orders). Motions for summary judgment, however, lack

these ancient common law roots. See generally John A. Bauman, The Evolution of the Summary Judgment Procedure: An Essay Commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of Keating's Act, 31 Ind. L.J. 329 (1956). They are governed by Rule 56 under which the failure to respond to the motion does not alone discharge the burdens imposed on a moving party. Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Company, 373 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir.2004). 1 the motion on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whether judgment 2 would be legally appropriate. Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.2006).2 3 It is well-settled that “before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion, the court must 4 5 inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to 6 summary judgment as a matter of law.” Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 7 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1991). Accordingly, we emphasize that "in considering a motion for summary 8 9 judgment, [courts] must review the motion, even if unopposed, and determine from what it has 10 before it whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." Custer v. 11 Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir.1993). 12 13 After reviewing Plaintiff’s arguments, and the relevant law, the court determines that there is 14 no triable issue as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 15 of law. The court concludes after a review of the documents provided by Plaintiff that it has met its 16 17 burden in terms of producing adequate affirmative evidence. Plaintiff's deed of sale and Defendant's 18 mortgage was never recorded. As such, amended claim number 8-3 filed by Defendant in the related 19 legal case 11-04694, is unsecured and the court declares Defendant’s lien over Debtor’s residence is 20 21 null and void. Defendant shall further deliver the mortgage note subscribed by Plaintiff to him 22 forthwith. 23

24 2 Entry of a summary judgment motion as unopposed does not automatically give rise to a grant of 25 summary judgment. Instead, “the district court [is] still obliged to consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be legally appropriate.” Mullen v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 446, 452 (1st Cir.1992). “Even when faced with an unopposed motion for summary judgment, a court still has the obligation to test the undisputed facts in the crucible of the applicable law in order to ascertain whether judgment is warranted.” Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990); Fed. R .Civ. P. 56(e)); Pico Vidal v. Ruiz Alvarado, 377 B.R. 788 (D.P.R., 2007). 1 The clerk shall schedule an evidentiary hearing to consider the monetary damages requeste by Plaintiff for Defendant’s willful violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 362(k). 4 SO ORDERED 5 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 18th day of October, 2017. 6 a Oe 9 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25