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.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Dabba

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

July 2, 2013

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Union Bank, F.S.B., Plaintiff,
v.
Jay Dabba and Nisha Dabba, husband and wife, Defendants.

ORDER AND OPINION [Motion at Docket 49]

JOHN W. SEDWICK, District Judge.

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 49, defendants Jay and Nisha Dabba ("Defendants") move for entry of judgment against themselves in the principal amount owed on the promissory note involved in this litigation plus interest and certain additional costs without any determination of the amount of credit due from a trustee's foreclosure sale of the real property used to secure the promissory note. At docket 52, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. ("FDIC-R") opposes the motion and requests instead that a judgment be entered against Defendant which reflects credit for the amount received at a trustee's sale of the property. Defendants reply at docket 53. Oral argument was requested but would not assist the court.

II. BACKGROUND

FDIC-R's predecessor Irwin-Union Bank loaned $455, 000 to Defendants pursuant to a business loan agreement dated May 31, 2005. The debt was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust on a tract of land which Defendants purchased with the loan proceeds. On June 1, 2007, Defendants executed a new promissory note which continued the repayment date in the original promissory note from June 1, 2007, to June 1, 2009. Defendants defaulted by failing to make the required payments. As a consequence, FDIC-R sued Defendants seeking to recover the principal balance remaining due, together with accrued interest, late charges, costs, and attorneys' fees.

FDIC-R commenced this litigation without first conducting a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Earlier, FDIC-R moved for summary judgment seeking the full amount of the principal owed on the promissory note, unpaid interest, late charges, a processing fee, and costs and attorneys' fees. Defendants opposed the motion on two grounds. They argued that the amount of interest was disputed and that they were entitled to a reduction from the sum owed to FDIC-R in the amount of the fair market value of the land securing the loan.[1] As Defendants put it:

Normally, if the FDIC-R had moved to non-judicially foreclose on the property, the FDIC-R could have then sought a deficiency judgment against the Defendants, and the Defendants would be entitled to a determination by the Court of the fair market value of the foreclosed upon property, which would act as [a reduction] on the amounts still owed under the promissory note. See Ariz. Rev. Stat ยง 33-814(A). * * *
Here, by suing on the note directly and avoiding a foreclosure on the deed of trust, the FDIC-R has attempted to circumvent a determination of the fair market value of the vacant land securing the FDIC-R's loan. * * * [B]y failing to do a trustee sale before initiating its suit on the note, the FDIC-R has deprived the Defendants the opportunity to contest whether the price paid at an eventual trustee sale of the land truly reflects the fair market property value of the property.[2] The court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment concluded that

Defendants were correct to contend that the amount of interest was in dispute, but permitted FDIC-R to proceed with the litigation.[3] That order also established the amount owed by Defendants with the exception of the amount of interest which the court noted "must remain for future determination."[4] Thereafter the parties stipulated to the amount of interest owed, and the stipulation was approved by the court.[5]

Recognizing that the only remaining issue was the one flagged by Defendants-determination of the fair market value of the property-the court issued an order setting out a briefing schedule for resolution of that issue.[6] The order filed on April 4, 2013, required Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment on the fair market value issue within 28 days and provided for filing a response and a reply. Rather than file a motion asking the court to determine the fair market value, Defendants filed the motion at docket 49, which asks the court to enter judgment without addressing the fair market value of the property-the very issue which Defendants had identified as of central significance in their earlier motion papers.

In the meantime, FDIC-R arranged for a foreclosure sale which was conducted on January 29, 2013. The sale was conducted in the customary manner, and the property was sold for $63, 751.00. Of this, $2, 739.60 represented the costs of sale, leaving a net payment to FDIC-R of $61, 011.40.[7]

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants elected not to present any evidence of the fair market value of the property when they failed to respond to the court's order requiring them to present their position on that issue. In FDIC-R's present motion papers, there is persuasive evidence that the fair market value at the time of the foreclosure sale was $63, 751.00. That was the price fetched at a properly noticed foreclosure sale from an independent third-party bidder. After payment of the costs of sale, the net was $61, 011.41. Based on the procedural history of the case, it would seem that FDIC-R is entitled to a deficiency judgment against Debtors in the amount owed, less $61, 011.41. Defendants, however, contend that instead of entering a judgment to that effect, the court should enter judgment against them in the full amount owed with no reduction for the fair market value of the property.

Defendants cite no authority which would support following the unorthodox procedure they ask the court to use. The only reason given to support their request is that they wish to pursue a state law claim in Arizona State Court. They assert their claim would be waived unless this court declines to determine the fair market value of the property by entering judgment against them for the full amount owed. Defendants say that amount consists of $424, 505.57 in ...


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.