This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Estate
Foreclosure

Phyllis Nickelsen v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al.

Published: May 23, 2015 | Result Date: Oct. 21, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:14-cv-05827-SVW-JC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tsarina Branyan


Defendant

Karen P. Ciccone

Carolyn A. Pearson


Facts

Phyllis Nickelsen sued The Bank of New York Mellon and several other defendants in connection with the foreclosure of her home and a subsequent bankruptcy filing.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that she purchased a house located in Long Beach and obtained a short term loan with First Horizon Home Loan to purchase the property. She contended that First Horizon's representative represented that her short term loan would be converted to a construction loan after closing. Immediately, she began renovations, but First Horizon refused to convert her loan into a construction loan. Consequently, plaintiff defaulted on her loan. She attempted to work with Nationstar, which took over First Horizon, but Nationstar had already instituted foreclosure procedures. As of March 2012, she was nearly $80,000 in arrears. Plaintiff then filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy relief on July 5, 2012. In 2013, plaintiff filed this instant lawsuit. Five months later, the bankruptcy court dismissed her case. Next, defendants removed this case to federal court.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that in plaintiff's bankruptcy filings, she indicated that she owned the subject property in fee simple and two loans against the residence, one for $460,000 and another for $789,000. Plaintiff, however, failed to list any claims against defendants as required under the bankruptcy court.

Consequently, defendants moved to dismiss this instant complaint, asserting judicial estoppel. Defendants alleged that it would be unfair to allow plaintiff to assert her claims.

Result

Ultimately, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss Nickelsen's complaint with prejudice.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 25, 2014.


#112065

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390