United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c), Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings,
including entry of judgment [Doc. 12].
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate [Doc.
60] and Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 64], requesting
immediate relief from Defendant's abuses and malicious
misconduct. Defendant has responded in opposition [Doc. 61,
65] to both Motions. The Motions are ripe for adjudication.
Accordingly, for the reasons further explained below, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions
[Docs. 60, 64].
filed a breach of contract case alleging that Defendant
misapplied funds in his mortgage escrow account to pay
insurance. Specifically, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan
to finance the purchase of real property
(“Property”). Plaintiff executed a promissory
Note that was secured by a Deed of Trust encumbering the
Property. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Deed of Trust,
Plaintiff was required to purchase insurance on the Property
for losses by fire and other hazards.
sent Plaintiff several letters regarding the requirement to
purchase insurance for the Property. When Plaintiff did not
respond, Defendant purchased a lender-placed insurance policy
(“LPI Policy”). Plaintiff later reported to
Defendant that he had purchased an insurance policy on the
Property from State Farm. Due to the lapse in coverage,
however, an escrow/impound account was required. Defendant
canceled the LPI Policy and began making premium payments for
the State Farm policy from the loan's escrow account from
2011 to 2014.
State Farm renewal certificates from July 2, 2010, through
July 2, 2013, show that State Farm insured Plaintiff's
Property. With respect to the renewal certificates for July
2, 2013, through July 2, 2014, and July 2, 2014, through July
2, 2015, the property listed as the insured premises is 129
Princeton Avenue, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830-7522. The 129
Princeton Avenue address is listed as Plaintiff's mailing
address on the previous renewal certificates. Plaintiff is
unaware of who made this change.
October 2014, Plaintiff discovered that someone broke into
the Property and stole personal property. He contacted State
Farm, and State Farm told him that he did not have a policy
on the Property. Later, on February 20, 2015, State Farm sent
Plaintiff an “Acknowledgment of Cancellation Request,
” stating that per Plaintiff's request, the policy
had been canceled effective as of July 2, 2010, and State
Farm issued Plaintiff a refund check in the amount of $2,
489.68 for the premiums paid. Defendant was later informed by
State Farm that the State Farm policy covered the property
located at 129 Princeton Avenue. Defendant requested that
Plaintiff send it the refund check in order to deposit in his
escrow account to avoid or offset a possible shortage.
Defendant declined Plaintiff's request to refund the
payments that Defendant sent to State Farm.
moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff could not
establish that it breached the contract under the facts of
this case. The Court agreed with Defendant and entered
summary judgment in its favor.
has now moved the Court to reconsider and for other relief.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Court will summarize the parties' positions outlined in
Motion to Reinstate
requests that the Court reinstate his case. He states that
the Court dismissed his case over some technicality.
Plaintiff asserts that the Court turned a blind eye to
Defendant's felonies. Plaintiff states that the previous
Order implied that the undersigned had ex parte conversations
with Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned should
recuse because the Court has permitted Defendant to commit
felonies. Plaintiff states that the Court has abused him.
Further, Plaintiff states that he has offered proof that
Defendant unlawfully placed his entire mortgage payment into
escrow. Plaintiff states that Defendant refuses to correct
this mistake. Plaintiff states that the Court participated in
Defendant's crimes by failing to contact the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”). Plaintiff
states that the Court has not read his paperwork. He submits
additional documents and requests that the Court award him $1
million in punitive damages and the deed to his home free and
clear of all encumbrances. He argues that federal mortgage
law requires that his payments be applied as the sender
intended them or to the principal and interest prior to
paying escrow. Plaintiff states that after the Court
dismissed the case, Defendant began repossession proceedings.
Plaintiff has submitted a document titled, “Chase
Detailed Transaction History, ” and a copy of 42 U.S.C.
§ 3631 and 18 U.S.C. § 656 for the Court's
responds [Doc. 61] that Plaintiff's Motion should be
treated as a request pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Defendant states that Plaintiff has not met
the requirements for relief under Rule 59(e) and that his
Motion serves as an attempt to re-litigate issues that the
Court has previously determined. Defendant argues that
Plaintiff's accusations ...