Hennepin County District Court File No. 27CV103775
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stauber, Judge
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Stauber, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION STAUBER, Judge
On appeal from summary judgment in this mortgage-foreclosure dispute, appellants argue that (1) summary judgment was improper because respondents are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and there are facts in dispute that preclude summary resolution; (2) the district court erred by dismissing appellants' summary-judgment motion for failing to follow the procedural requirements of Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 15.03(d); and (3) this court should not decide this appeal until the Independent Review Administrator has addressed whether appellants suffered financial injury in this case. We affirm.
In March 2005, appellants Matthew and Lori Winn refinanced their homestead property (the property), obtaining a mortgage loan from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (GreenPoint). The loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a mortgage on the property. The mortgage granted a security interest in the property, along with the power of sale, to respondent Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as mortgagee and nominee for GreenPoint, its successors and assigns.
The mortgage was securitized, or pooled, with other mortgages and assigned to the GreenPoint MTA Trust, 2005-ARI, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-ARI (the trust). The trust is administered by a trustee pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). The PSA governs placement of loans into the trust, servicing of the loans, and the relationships among the trustee, servicers, and other parties to the PSA.
After appellants defaulted on the loan, MERS assigned the mortgage to respondent Bank of New York as Successor Trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc., GreenPoint MTA Trust 2005-ARI, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-ARI (Bank of New York). Bank of New York subsequently commenced foreclosure proceedings and, in July 2009, appellants received the notice of mortgage foreclosure sale, homestead designation notice, and other required foreclosure documents. The property was sold at sheriff's sale and the sheriff's certificate of sale was recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on the same day.
Appellants failed to redeem from foreclosure, but brought an action against Bank of New York and MERS (collectively "respondents") challenging the mortgage assignment from MERS to Bank of New York and Bank of New York's standing to foreclose. Both parties then moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that appellants "failed to comply with the procedural requirements [set forth in Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.03(d)] to support their motion for summary judgment, and, on that ground alone, their Motion should be denied." The district court also held that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellants' "frivolous" amended complaint with prejudice. Appellants filed this appeal and have continued to live on the property while not having made a mortgage payment since June 2008.
The rules governing summary judgment require a court to dismiss a claim "if there is no genuine dispute regarding the material facts, and a party is entitled to judgment under the law applicable to such facts." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997). "[T]he reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). On appeal from a summary judgment, a reviewing court reviews "de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists" and "whether the district court erred in its application of the law." STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. 2002). The party opposing summary judgment must produce "substantial evidence" to show an issue of material fact. DLH, 566 N.W.2d at 70 (stating that "substantial evidence" refers to "legal sufficiency and not quantum of evidence"). There is no issue of material fact if the nonmoving party "presents ...