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.

Bracewell v. U.S. Bank National Association

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

April 4, 2014

Etta Bracewell; Samuel Parsons, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant - Appellee

Submitted, October 21, 2013

For Etta Bracewell, Samuel Parsons, Plaintiffs - Appellants: Daniel Eaton, Kevin Lampone, Christensen Law Office, Minneapolis, MN.

For U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant - Appellee: Peter William Carter, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, MN; Brian L. Vander Pol, U.S. Bancorp, Minneapolis, MN.

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 794

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Etta Bracewell and Samuel Parsons, a married couple, sued U.S. Bank National Association (" U.S. Bank" ), seeking to void a mortgage foreclosure sale of their home. Bracewell and Parsons allege that U.S. Bank represented orally that it would postpone the foreclosure sale, but then proceeded anyway. They seek relief based on common-law claims of negligent misrepresentation and equitable estoppel. The district court[1] granted the bank's motion to dismiss the case, and we affirm.

I.

Bracewell borrowed money from U.S. Bank in 2003 to purchase a home. She fell behind on her loan payments, and the

Page 795

bank invited her in September 2011 to apply for a loan modification. Bracewell faxed an application to the bank in October 2011, but in November, the bank served Bracewell with a Notice of Mortgage Foreclosure Sale. Later that month, the bank sent Bracewell another letter, requesting that she submit more documentation to complete the application for modification of the loan.

In late December 2011, Bracewell faxed the requested documents, and Parsons called the bank to confirm receipt. Parsons spoke with " Paul" at U.S. Bank, who stated that the bank needed another form from Bracewell; she faxed the requested document the next day. Parsons called U.S. Bank again on or about December 22. " Paul" allegedly told Parsons that he had received all the necessary documents, and that the sheriff's sale, then scheduled for December 29, was " off." According to Parsons, " Paul" said the bank would review the application and give Bracewell and Parsons a response after the holidays. But on December 29, U.S. Bank purchased the home at the sheriff's sale.

Bracewell and Parsons responded bye suing the bank in state court. The two-count complaint alleged claims of negligent misrepresentation and equitable estoppel, and sought an order declaring void the sheriff's sale of the home. The bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship and moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court determined that the claims were barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute, Minn. Stat. ยง 513.33, 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.