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.

Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

June 21, 2017

TERRY JOE BEASLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,, Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          ALETA A. TRAUGER United States District Judge

         Before the court are the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 8), filed by defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of Park Place Securities, Inc., asset-backed pass-through Certificates Series 2004-MCW (“Park Place”), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively, the “Wells Fargo defendants”), and plaintiff Terry Joe Beasley's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 11). The Motion to Remand has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.

         For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 11) will be denied. Because the court may appropriately exercise jurisdiction over this action, the plaintiff will be directed to file a response to the Wells Fargo defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Beasley filed the Complaint in this action on March 10, 2017 in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee. (Doc. No. 6-1). He sues the Wells Fargo defendants and the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).

         According to the allegations in the Complaint, Beasley resides in Tennessee and owns real property known as 2009 College View Drive, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130 (the “Property”). Park Place and Wells Fargo are foreign corporations doing business in Tennessee. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3.) The SBA is a federal agency and is the beneficiary of a certain Deed of Trust to the Property, recorded in the Office of the Rutherford County Register of Deeds. The plaintiff alleges that the SBA is an “indispensable party to this action as it has an interest in any foreclosure proceeds over $100, 000.” (Compl. ¶ 4.)

         The plaintiff previously filed suit against the Wells Fargo defendants; that action too was removed to this court. (Compl. ¶ 7.) The undersigned granted the defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed the action without prejudice, for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 WL 413856 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2017). According to the Complaint in that action, the plaintiff borrowed $189, 000 from Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Ameriquest”) to purchase the Property in 2004. At some point, Ameriquest transferred and assigned the Deed of Trust and Note to Wells Fargo, as Trustee for Park Place. Beasley eventually defaulted on his mortgage. In April 2016, Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure proceedings. Those proceedings were apparently postponed while Beasley pursued the previous action. Id. at *1.

         Beasley alleges in his current Complaint that, while the prior action was pending and without notice to the plaintiff, his attorney, or the SBA, the Wells Fargo defendants proceeded with the non-judicial foreclosure sale of the Property, at which it sold the Property for $100, 000. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8-9.) The actual value of the Property is approximately $175, 000. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Wells Fargo, as Trustee, had previously entered into a Limited Subordination Agreement in 2009, which required any proceeds from a sale of the Property over the amount of $100, 000 be paid to the SBA. (See Compl. ¶ 10 and Ex. A.) At the time Beasley acquired the Property, he had an SBA loan in place and secured by the Property. He has continued to make payments on the SBA loan and remains current on that loan. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

         Beasley alleges that, by proceeding with the non-judicial foreclosure sale without notice to him or to the SBA and by selling the Property for substantially less than fair market value, the Wells Fargo defendants interfered with the contract between the plaintiff and the SBA and deprived both the plaintiff and the SBA of approximately $75, 000. (Compl. ¶ 13.)

         Based on these factual allegations, the plaintiff asserts a claim against the Wells Fargo defendants for “Wrongful Foreclosure” in violation of Tennessee law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101 et seq., and the Tennessee Constitution. He asserts that the Wells Fargo defendants' actions have “caused damages to Plaintiff and to SBA not exceeding $75, 000.” (Compl. ¶ 20.) He seeks judgment in his favor and damages, as well as “an injunction . . . preventing Defendants or [their] agents from further foreclosure and eviction actions against Plaintiff's home.” (Compl. at 6.)

         The Wells Fargo defendants were served with the Complaint on March 27, 2017 and removed it to this court on April 20, 2017. (Notice of Removal ¶ 2, Doc. No. 1.) The asserted basis for removal is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the controversy is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.

         The Wells Fargo defendants filed an Answer on April 27, 2017. (Doc. No. 7.) They filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 8) on May 5, 2017. Rather than responding to that motion, the plaintiff, on May 9, 2017, filed his Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 11), arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction because (1) the SBA did not consent to removal; and (2) the plaintiff alleges damages of less than $75, 000, so the amount in controversy is not met.

         II. MOTION TO REMAND

         Generally, a civil case brought in state court may be removed by a defendant to federal court only if the action is one over which the federal court could have exercised original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, there is no dispute that the parties are completely diverse.[1] The parties disagree, however, as 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.