Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Note Mortgage Unenforceable Dorsey v Vanderbuilt 3 14

Note Mortgage Unenforceable Dorsey v Vanderbuilt 3 14

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by A. Campbell

More info:

Published by: A. Campbell on Mar 13, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6thCir. BAP LBR 8013-1(b). See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8010-19(c).
In re:RICKY J. DORSEY, SR.; KAREN A.DORSEY,Debtors. ______________________________________ J. JAMES ROGAN, TRUSTEE, Plaintiff - Appellee,v.VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE,INC., Defendant - Appellant. ______________________________________ ))))))))))))))))) No. 13-8036Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Courtfor the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort. Nos. 11-30829; 12-3010.SUBMITTED: February 4, 2014Decided and Filed: March 7, 2014Before: EMERSON, LLOYD and OPPERMAN, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. ____________________ 
ON BRIEF:John P. Brice, WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. J. James Rogan, J. JAMES ROGAN, P.S.C., Danville, Kentucky, for Appellee. ____________________ 
 In its brief, Vanderbilt offered several other issues which were not addressed in the bankruptcy
court’s memorandum opinion (i.e. whether Vanderbilt had standing to file a secured proof of claim andwhether Vanderbilt’s secured claim in the main case should be allowed). While dependent on the outcomeof this appeal, these issues were not addressed by the bankruptcy court. The sale of the property has nowtaken place. The bankruptcy court stated, “Allocation of the sale proceeds will occur through the sale process in the main case.” Mem. Op. at 16, Adv. Proc. No. 12-3010, ECF No. 33.-2-
, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Appellant VanderbiltMortgage and Finance, Inc. (“Vanderbilt”) appeals from the bankruptcy court’s memorandumopinion and order granting summary judgment to the trustee, denying summary judgment as toVanderbilt, and finding that the note held by Vanderbilt, secured by a properly perfected mortgageon the Debtors’ real property, was not enforceable as of the date the Debtors filed their petition. Assuch, the bankruptcy court found that Vanderbilt could not enforce the mortgage and authorized J.James Rogan, Chapter 7 Trustee (“Trustee”), to sell the real property free of all interests.
1.Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that Appellant had failed to present sufficient proof that it was entitled to enforce the note executed by theDebtors in favor of Popular Financial Services, LLC. 2.Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that because the Note wasunenforceable by Appellant, the mortgage which secured the note was alsounenforceable.
For the following reasons, the Panel affirms the bankruptcy court’s memorandum opinionand order granting summary judgment in favor of the Trustee.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide this appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has authorized appeals to the
Panel, and no party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C.§158(b)(6), (c)(1).A grant of summary judgment is a conclusion of law, reviewed
de novo
 Medical Mut. of Ohio v. K. Amalia Enters., Inc.
, 548 F.3d 383, 389 (6th Cir. 2008). “Summary judgment is proper if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there are nogenuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
. (citations omitted). Under a
de novo
standard of review, the reviewing court decides theissue independently of, and without deference to, the trial court’s determination.
 Menninger v. Accredited Home Lenders
 In re Morgeson
), 371 B.R. 798, 800 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2007).
Debtors Ricky J. Dorsey, Sr. and Karen A. Dorsey (“Debtors”), filed a Chapter 7 petition onDecember 19, 2011. On Schedule A, the Debtors listed real property consisting of a “home and property located at 1711 Fairmont Rd., Anderson County, KY consisting of mobile home permanently affixed to property.” The Debtors listed the property with a value of $60,000 and theamount of the secured claim relating to the property as “100,000.00.” On Schedule C, the Debtorsclaimed an exemption in the real property of “0.00.” On Schedule D, the Debtors listed a securedclaim with Vanderbilt Mortgage. The Debtors also stated that it was their intention to reaffirm thedebt with Vanderbilt Mortgage which secured the home and property.On July 20, 2012, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (“Vanderbilt”) filed a motion toterminate the stay in the Debtors’ case. Attached to the motion was a note executed by the Debtors, promising to pay $108,000.00 to Popular Financial Services, LLC in equal monthly payments of $935.83, consisting of principal and interest at a yearly rate of 9.85% per annum (the “Note”). The Note was payable over thirty years. Also attached to the motion was a mortgage listing Popular Financial Services, LLC as the lender, with Mortgage Electronic Services, Inc., (“MERS”) listedsolely as acting nominee for lender and lender’s successors and assigns, and mortgagee under themortgage (the “Mortgage”). Mot. to Term. Auto. Stay, Bankr. Case No. 11-30829, ECF No. 21.On August 1, 2012, the Trustee filed an objection to the motion, alleging that the Noteattached to the motion, and also attached to Vanderbilt’s proof of claim, did not contain an

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->