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.

Hammond v. Federal National Mortgage Association

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

November 20, 2014

DANNY HAMMOND, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

ORDER AND OPINION (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DIRECTING BOTH PARTIES TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

ORTRIE D. SMITH, Senior District Judge.

Pending are two motions filed by Defendant (Federal National Mortgage Association, or "FNMA"): a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Compel. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 70) is granted in part and denied in part and the Motion to Compel (Doc. # 88) is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This case started in state court on November 22, 2013 but was removed to federal court on January 10, 2014. The Corrected Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on June 23, 2014 (Doc. # 61) and is the operative pleading in this case. The Court is required to liberally construe the SAC, and Plaintiff is held to a less exacting pleading standard than a represented party would be. E.g., Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014). In addition, the Court should not focus on the legal theories identified by a pro se plaintiff and instead should examine the factual allegations to determine whether they could support relief under any possible theory. Id. at 848-49. When viewed in this light (and not the standard FNMA espouses, which does not account for Plaintiff's pro se status), the Court interprets the SAC in the following manner.

As stated, this suit was originally filed in state court, apparently in anticipation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on real property that occurred on November 25, 2013. Back in July 2002, the owners of the property - Claudia Bill-Copping and Frederick Copping ("the Coppings") - took out a mortgage on the property; the loan was financed by First Magnus Financial Corporation. First Magnus conveyed its interest to Bank of America, and then Bank of America conveyed its interest to FNMA.

Plaintiff was not a party to these transactions. However, he alleges he has an interest in the property. He alleges that he had a Promissory Note in the amount of $81, 526.36 and the Note was secured by a Deed of Trust. He further claims that he foreclosed on the property in August 2013. SAC, p. 24.

The FNMA foreclosure occurred on November 25 as planned and FNMA was the successful bidder. The SAC lodges many general complaints about this sequence of events, some of which are repeated on numerous occasions over the span of the SAC's thirty-three pages. For instance, the SAC

• Complains the Promissory Note was not presented to the mortgagees or Plaintiff at the sale or at any other time,
• Asserts documents were not properly recorded with the Recorder of Deeds,
• Complains that the original transaction between First Magnus and the Coppings lacked consideration,
• Utilizes the phrase "holder in due course" in a variety of contexts that do not make any jurisprudential sense,
• Chronicles FNMA's history and status as an entity without any connection to this particular transaction, and
• Casts aspersions on the banking and mortgage industries generally without any connection to ...

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.