Title: U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Baber

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BABER2012 OK 55Case Number: 109942Decided: 06/12/2012THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN 
THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR 
WITHDRAWAL. 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As TRUSTEE of the SECURITY 
NATIONAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-1, Plaintiff/Appellee,v.BILLY G. BABER 
a/k/a BILLY GENE BABER and JEANETTE BABER, a/k/a AGNES J. BABER a/k/a A. 
JEANETTE BABER, Defendants/Appellants,andMORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR GOLD MORTGAGE BANC, INC., AMERIQUEST 
MORTGAGE COMPANY and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. 
Defendants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA 
COUNTYHONORABLE PATRICIA G. PARRISHDISTRICT JUDGE
¶0 Appeal of a summary judgment and motion to vacate granted in U.S. Bank 
Association's favor against Billy G. Baber and Jeanette Baber, husband and wife 
(hereinafter "Appellants"), on March 18, 2011. The Babers appeal this summary 
judgment, and motion to vacate.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
MaryGaye LeBoeuf , Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants Billy 
G. Baber and Jeanette Baber.Melvin R. Mcvay and Raymond E. Zschiesche, 
Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, PC, Oklahoma City Oklahoma for 
Plaintiff/Appellee U.S. Bank, N.A.Scott Peck, Peck, Erodes & Wenzel, 
P.A., Oklahoma City for Plaintiff/Appellee U.S. Bank, N.A.
COMBS, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1 On February 22, 2005, Appellants executed a promissory note 
(hereinafter "Note") payable to Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Inc. 
(hereinafter "Lender"). To secure payment of the Note, Appellants executed 
and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as 
nominee for Lender, as mortgagee, a certain mortgage (hereinafter "Mortgage"), 
which conveyed and mortgaged to the mortgagee certain real property located in 
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. In both the Note and Mortgage, Ameriquest Mortgage 
Company is named as the Lender and Payee. Appellants defaulted on the Note. 
Appellee initiated foreclosure proceedings on November 6, 2006. A copy of the 
non-indorsed Note and Mortgage was included with the petition. 
¶2 In their answer, Appellants demanded strict proof of the 
ownership of the Note and Mortgage.1 Appellee moved for summary judgment on August 31, 2009. 
In an attached affidavit, Appellee asserted it currently held both the Note and 
Mortgage at issue, and again produced a copy of both the unindorsed Note and 
Mortgage. 
¶3 The final Journal Entry of Judgment was filed on March 18, 2011 
granting judgment on the note and foreclosing the mortgage lien in favor of U.S. 
Bank Association, as Trustee. The Babers filed a motion to vacate the judgment 
on April 4, 2011 arguing they were denied their statutory right to respond to 
U.S. Bank NA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in violation of statute and 
rule, that the motion was not delivered to them in a timely fashion and that 
they did not receive notice of the hearing that occurred on September 5, 
2010. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4 The standard of review2 for a trial court's ruling either vacating or refusing 
to vacate a judgment is abuse of discretion. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. v. 
Webb Enterprises, Inc., 2000 OK 78, ¶ 5, 13 P.3d 480, 482; Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 
1962 OK 
136, 372 P.2d 233. A clear abuse-of-discretion standard includes appellate review of 
both fact and law issues. Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43, 65 P.3d 591, 608. An abuse of discretion occurs 
when a court bases its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law, or where 
there is no rational basis in evidence for the ruling. Fent v. Oklahoma 
Natural Gas Co., 2001 OK 35, ¶12; 27 P.3d 477, 481
¶5 Following the teachings of Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Brumbaugh, 
2012 OK 
3, ___ P.3d ____, ¶11, where we held:
To commence a foreclosure action in Oklahoma, a plaintiff must demonstrate it 
has a right to enforce the note and, absent a showing of ownership, the 
plaintiff lacks standing. Gill v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma 
City, 1945 OK 
181, 159 P.2d 717. Being a person entitled to enforce the note is an essential 
requirement to initiate a foreclosure lawsuit. In the present case, there is a 
question of fact as to when Appellee became a holder, and thus, a person 
entitled to enforce the note. Therefore, summary judgment is not appropriate. If 
Deutsche Bank became a person entitled to enforce the note as either a holder or 
nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder after the foreclosure 
action was filed, then the case may be dismissed without prejudice and the 
action may be re-filed in the name of the proper party. We reverse the granting 
of summary judgment by the trial court and remand back for further 
determinations as to when Appellee acquired its interest in the 
note.
See also, Deutsche Bank v. Matthews, 2012 OK 14, , ___ P.3d ____; Deutsche Bank v. 
Richardson, 2012 OK 
15, ___ P.3d ____;and J.P. Morgan v. Eldridge, 2012 OK 24, ___ P.3d ____. In the present matter 
U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee filed a non-indorsed copy of the note at every step 
of the proceedings.3 We therefore find there is a question of fact as to 
when U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee, acquired the note in the instant matter, and we 
remand this matter back to the trial court for further determination as to if 
and when U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee became a person entitled to enforce the 
note. 
CONCLUSION
¶6 It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to 
actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and to have the 
proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of 
the note, so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. 
This is accomplished by showing the party is a holder of the instrument or a 
nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a 
person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the 
instrument pursuant to 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-309 or 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-418. Likewise, for the 
homeowners, absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal 
cannot cancel their obligation arising from an authenticated note, or insulate 
them from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency and, therefore, 
this Court's decision in no way releases or exonerates the debt owed by the 
defendants on this home. See, U.S. Bank National Association v. Kimball 27 A.3d 1087, 75 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 100, 2011 VT 81 (VT 2011); and Indymac Bank, 
F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 78 A.D.3d 895, 912 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2010)
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
¶7 CONCUR: TAYLOR, C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, REIF, COMBS, JJ.
¶8 CONCUR IN PART; DISSENT IN PART: WINCHESTER (JOINS GURICH, J.), GURICH 
(BY SEPARATE WRITING), JJ.
¶9 RECUSED: COLBERT, V.C.J.
FOOTNOTES
1 Also at issue was an 
alleged scriveners error which placed the mortgage lien on land not occupied by 
the house for which the note and mortgage was allegedly executed. The trial 
court reformed the mortgage to reflect the legal description asserted by 
Appellee as the correct tract of land to be encumbered by the mortgage lien, 
originally executed by the Appellants. This order was filed on November 19, 
2010. 
2 Summary judgment decisions are reviewed de novo, 
Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, ¶ 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053, whereas orders denying or 
granting a petition to vacate are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Patel 
v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., 1999 OK 33 at ¶ 20. 
3 Since this matter is being remanded on the issue of 
standing, we therefore will not address the issues raised by the Baber's as they 
again will have opportunity for all issues, including but not limited to the 
issue of reformation of the mortgage to be address again in District Court. 

GURICH, J., with whom WINCHESTER, J. joins concurring in part and dissenting 
in part: 
¶1 I concur that summary judgment was improper in this case because the trial 
court failed to allow Defendants time to respond to Plaintiff's cross-motion for 
summary judgment,1 and the Defendants did not receive notice that the 
Plaintiff had taken a default judgment for reformation and foreclosure against 
the other defendants in the case. However, because the majority reverses solely 
on the issue of standing, I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my 
dissenting opinions in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Matthews, 
2012 OK 14, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., 
dissenting) and Bank of America, NA v. Kabba, 2012 OK 23, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., dissenting).2
FOOTNOTES
1 See Rule 13, 
Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S. Ch. 
2, 
App. In this case, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Two days 
before the hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff 
filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment. Without giving the 
Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary 
judgment, the trial court held a hearing on both the Defendants' motion for 
summary judgment and the Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. 
2 Although I originally concurred in the majority opinion 
in Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Brumbaugh, 2012 OK 3, ___P.3d___, after further consideration, 
I disagree with the majority's analysis in that case, and my views on the issues 
in these cases are accurately reflected in J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. 
Eldridge, 2012 OK 
24, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); 
Kabba, 2012 OK 
23, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., dissenting); CPT Asset Backed Certificates, 
Series 2004-EC1 v. Kham, 2012 OK 22, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., dissenting); 
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Richardson, 2012 OK 15, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., concurring in 
part and dissenting in part); and Matthews, 2012 OK 14, ___P.3d___ (Gurich, J., dissenting).