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.

Deutsch Bank National Trust Co. v. Fegely

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

July 26, 2018

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET L. FEGELY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          M. Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's ("Deutsche Bank") brings this action against pro se Defendant Margaret L. Fegely seeking a declaratory judgment and to quiet title on property purchased at an August 22, 2012 foreclosure sale.

         On February 17, 2016, Deutsche Bank filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Hanover County. (ECF No. 1-2.) On March 9, 2016, Fegely removed the case to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On August 22, 2016, Deutsche Bank filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 2), and on September 13, 2016, Fegely filed a Motion for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 4). The Court denied both motions-as well as a demurrer Deutsche Bank had filed prior to removal-without prejudice after a review of the pleadings raised doubts that removal was proper and that the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Deutsche Bank's claims. (Feb. 16, 2017 Mem. Order, ECF No. 15.) On May 5, 2017, after soliciting briefing from the parties, the Court determined that it possessed subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[1] (May 5, 2017 Mem. Order, ECF No. 21.)

         On May 15, 2017, Fegely filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 22.) Deutsche Bank responded, (ECF No. 24), and Fegely replied, (ECF No. 25). On January 19, 2018, Deutsche Bank again filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 28.) Fegely responded, (ECF No. 32), and Deutsche Bank replied, (ECF No. 34). Separately, on January 30, 2018, Fegely filed a Cross-Motion to Deny Deutsche Bank's Motion and for Judgment and Subsequent Remedy for Lack of Standing, for Fraud, and for Default (the "Cross-Motion"). (ECF No. 30.) Deutsche Bank opposed the Cross-Motion. (ECF No. 35.) On February 5, 2018, Fegely filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 33.)

         On March 27, 2018, the Court denied Fegely's Motion to Dismiss. (March 27, 2018 Mem. Order, ECF No. 39.) Fegely appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, (ECF No. 41), and filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal (the "Motion to Stay"), (ECF No. 43). The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the March 27, 2018 Order, (ECF No. 40), was "neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order." (Fourth Circuit Op. 2, ECF No. 45.)

         The Court referred all of the above motions to the Honorable Roderick C. Young, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 44.) On July 11, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (ECF No. 49.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that:

(1) Fegely's Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 43), be denied as moot;
(2) Fegely's Motion to Take Judicial Notice, (ECF No. 33), be granted;
(3) Fegely's Cross-Motion, (ECF No. 30), be denied; and,
(4) Deutsche Bank's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 28), be granted as to Counts I and II and denied as to Deutsche Bank's request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

(R&R 10.)

         By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); (R&R 11). On July 16, 2018, Fegely filed an Objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 50.) Deutsche Bank filed no objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired.

         Fegely's objections merely restate the facts and claims in other court filings and broadly argue, without citation to any legal authority or evidence, that she "has presented unrebutted proof to this Court that fraud was in-fact committed in the foreclosure of the subject property." (Obj. 3, ECF No. 50.) The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and thoughtfully considered these claims in the R&R and correctly deemed them meritless. Fegely also persists in her inapposite claim that "[p]laintiff(s) do not have the legal right to collect this or any sum because no sum is owed by to[sic] the Plaintiff(s)." (Id. at 2.) As this Court has stated before, [2] Deutsche Bank is not seeking to collect any debt. Rather, Deutsche Bank seeks a declaratory judgment and to quiet title.

         The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and Fegely's objections. Finding no error ...


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.