Hall v. GMAC Mtg Corp , 258 F. App'x 448 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-17-2007
Hall v. GMAC Mtg Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2556
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Hall v. GMAC Mtg Corp" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 55.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/55
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2556
EDWARD K. HALL; ETHEL M. HALL
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION PAYOFF PROCESSING UNIT
Edward K. Hall,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-1133
(Honorable Faith S. Hochberg)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 11, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 17, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Edward K. Hall appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders granting the
GMAC Mortgage Corporation’s (“GMAC”) motion for summary judgment. For the
following reasons, we will affirm.
Edward Hall refinanced his home mortgage on November 24, 1993; the mortgage
and note were later assigned to GMAC. In December 2005, Hall requested a mortgage
payoff statement from GMAC. GMAC provided a statement listing a payoff amount of
$5,338.80 as of December 5, 2005, and provided a per diem rate for any payments made
after that date. On December 21, 2005, Hall made out a check to GMAC for exactly
$5,338.80. Upon receipt of the check, GMAC notified Hall of the remaining mortgage
balance and applicable fees.
Instead of paying the amount owing, Hall filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that GMAC failed to satisfy the
mortgage.1 GMAC moved for summary judgment, noting that it had elected to mark the
mortgage as satisfied because of “Mr. Hall’s persistent [and meritless] filings” and based
on a “cost/benefit rule of business.” By order entered April 20, 2007, the District Court
granted GMAC’s motion for summary judgment as to Hall’s breach of contract claim.
Because Hall’s submissions also appeared to raise a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)
claim, the District Court further ordered that he provide a “short, concise submission . . .
stating the specific actions of Defendant that violated specific provisions of the Truth in
Lending Act.” Hall failed to do so, and, on May 15, 2007, the District Court granted
GMAC’s summary judgment motion as to all claims. Hall appealed.
1
Although Edward Hall’s wife, Ethel, was initially named as a plaintiff, the District
Court later granted her request to withdraw from the case.
2
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo
review over an order granting summary judgment. See Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson
Med., Inc., 228 F.3d 313, 318 (3d Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate when the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and any affidavits
show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The District Court properly dismissed Hall’s breach of contract claim as moot.
Because federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies, an
action becomes moot when “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)
(per curiam) (citations omitted). “A central question in determining mootness is whether
a change in circumstances since the beginning of the litigation precludes any occasion for
meaningful relief.” Old Bridge Owners Co-op. Corp. v. Twp. of Old Bridge, 246 F.3d
310, 314 (3d Cir. 2001). During the District Court proceedings in this case, GMAC
marked the mortgage satisfied to avoid additional litigation costs. Because this fulfilled
Hall’s demand for relief, the breach of contract claim was rendered moot.2
2
In the District Court, Hall alleged that GMAC provided him with a “phoney set of
papers.” There is no evidence of this whatsoever. On appeal, Hall baldly claims that
GMAC continues to “deprive[] [him] of retained Escrow Funds.” But the payoff sheet
clearly indicates that $823.69 in escrow funds were subtracted from the amount due,
resulting in a total payoff amount of $5,338.80.
3
Furthermore, GMAC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to
Hall’s claim for rescission of the mortgage under the TILA. After attempting to raise this
claim in his “Narrative Statement of Facts to be Presented at Trial,” the District Court
directed him to explain in detail how GMAC Mortgage Corporation (“GMAC”) violated
the Act. Hall responded by submitting a document, entitled “Appeal,” which failed to
address the TILA. On appeal, Hall asserts that the District Court “overlooked the fact
that [his “Narrative Statement” contained a request under the TILA for] declaratory,
injunctive, and other equitable relief.” We conclude that even if Hall adequately
presented a TILA claim in his “Narrative Statement,” such a claim was untimely. See
Fairview Township v. EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that District
Court’s grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any basis supported by the
record). When a loan made in a consumer credit transaction is secured by the borrower’s
principal dwelling, the TILA provides for a rescission deadline of three business days
from the point of consummation of the transaction. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a); 12 C.F.R.
§ 226.23(a)(3). This rescission period can be extended to three years after consummation
if the lender fails to meet the disclosure requirements of the TILA. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 1635(f). In this case, because Hall refinanced his home mortgage on November 24,
1993, but, by his own admission, did not seek rescission until December 21, 2005, he
could not bring a claim under the TILA for rescission of the mortgage. See Beach v.
Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 419 (1998) (concluding “that the [TILA] permits no
4
federal right to rescind, defensively or otherwise, after the 3-year period of § 1635(f) has
run.”).
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders granting GMAC’s
motion for summary judgment.
5