Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Taylor v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville

May 31, 2019



         This 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].

         Now 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].

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendant 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.

         The 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.

         In 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.

         Defendant 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.

         Plaintiff has now moved the Court to reconsider and for other relief.


         The Court will summarize the parties' positions outlined in their Motions.

         A. Motion to Reinstate

         Plaintiff 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 consideration.

         Defendant 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 ...

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.