Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Keenhold

March 2, 2009

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-1, PLAINTIFF
v.
DANNY A. KEENHOLD, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. McClure, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

(Judge McClure)

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2008, plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of Renaissance Home Equity Trust 2006-1 ("HSBC"), instituted this civil foreclosure action against Danny A. Keenhold. (Rec. Doc. No. 1). Now, before the court, is plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed January 5, 2009, requesting we foreclose and authorize sale of property subject to a defaulted mortgage dated and acknowledged by defendant. (Rec. Doc. No. 11). In his answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendant admits responsibility for the mortgage and acknowledges the mortgage is in default, but denies that plaintiff has standing to initiate this action and claims plaintiff's requested damages are inflated. (Rec. Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff filed a supporting brief with its motion. (Rec. Doc. No. 12). Defendant has failed to respond. This motion is now ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, we will grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

It is appropriate for a court to grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Material facts" are those which might affect the outcome of the suit. Id.; Justofin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 517, 521 (3d Cir. 2004).

Regardless of who bears the burden of persuasion at trial, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show an absence of genuine issues of material fact. Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). When the moving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial, it must point to evidence in the record that supports its version of all material facts and demonstrate an absence of material facts to the contrary.

National State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank, 979 F.2d 1579, 1582 (3d Cir. 1992). If the moving party does not meet this burden, the court must deny summary judgment even if the nonmoving party does not produce any opposing evidence.

Id.

Once the moving party meets its burden of showing an absence of genuine issues of material fact, the nonmoving party must provide some evidence that a issue of material fact remains. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The nonmoving party, however, cannot do so by merely offering general denials, vague allegations, or conclusory statements; rather the party must point to specific evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 32; Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel.

M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 1999). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment the court will draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record in favor of the nonmoving party. Am. Flint Glass Workers Union v. Beaumont Glass Co., 62 F.3d 574, 578 (3d Cir. 1995).

II. Statement of Facts

On or about January 16, 2006, defendant obtained a loan from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), as Nominee for Delta Funding Corporation, for the sum of $157,500.00. That same day defendant executed and delivered to MERS a promissory note for the same amount. To secure the loan, the defendant executed and acknowledged a purchase money mortgage that mortgaged to MERS property located at 404 Lamplight Estates, Brodheadsville, Pennsylvania 18322. The mortgage was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Monroe County on January 20, 2006. MERS subsequently assigned the promissory note and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.