Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08079/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08079-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James L. Jones, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ReconTrust Co., Bank of America

Mortgage Corporate Office/Headquarters,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-8079-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Bank of America’s (“Bank”) motion for summary judgment

(doc. 60), plaintiff’s response (doc. 67), the Bank’s reply (doc. 70), plaintiff’s sur-reply (doc.

71), the Bank’s motion to strike the sur-reply (doc. 74), and plaintiff’s response (doc. 75).

We also have before us plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 69), the Bank’s

response (doc. 72), plaintiff’s reply (doc. 73); plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

documents (doc. 51), the Bank’s response (doc. 56); and plaintiff’s motion to compel agency

(doc. 63), and the Bank’s response (doc. 66).

I

On March 15, 2007, Countrywide Bank made a mortgage loan to Joy Sondeno in the

principal amount of $123,000.00 (“Loan”) related to the purchase of real property located

in Kingman, Arizona (“Property”). DSOF, ex. 1. On February 13, 2012, Sondeno executed

a quit claim deed purporting to transfer her interest in the Property to James L. Jones, Jr.,

plaintiff in this case. Sondeno was in default and the loan was in foreclosure at the time of

Case 3:12-cv-08079-FJM Document 76 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

the transfer, the last payment having been made in May 2011. Compl., ex. B. On February

21, 2012, plaintiff sent the Bank a purported “Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) instrument

#227" in the amount of $148,468.82 for payment on the Loan. Id. Although plaintiff refers

to the alleged payoff document an “EFT,” the copy of the item plaintiff attached as exhibit

B to his complaint appears to be a personal check. See Compl., ex. B. Shortly after sending

the purported payoff funds, plaintiff filed this action on March 21, 2012, seeking to quiet title

to the Property. On April 11, 2012, the Bank sent Plaintiff a letter rejecting EFT #227,

explaining that the EFT was an unacceptable form of tender and informing plaintiff that the

payoff must be made with “certified funds,” including “money order, cashier’s check, or wire

transfer.” DSOF, ex. 5, ex. E. It is undisputed that the Bank never accepted funds from

plaintiff. There is no claim that plaintiff ever re-tendered the funds in a form acceptable to

the Bank. The Loan remains in default and carries a balance of $155,317.48. 

II

Plaintiff’s sur-reply to the Bank’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 71) is not

authorized by LRCiv 7.2 and is therefore stricken (doc. 74).

III

Plaintiff’s motion to compel agency (doc. 63) demands that the Bank’s lawyer provide

proof of his status as agent of the Bank. We have already held that defendant’s lawyers are

not required to prove that they have a contract to represent defendant and that plaintiff’s

demand is frivolous. See Order (doc. 26) at 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel agency is denied

(doc. 63).

IV

Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a party may discover information that is

relevant to the party’s claim or defense. Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks the production

of documents related to a loan to which he is not a party. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to

compel a currency trace, an S3-A registration statement, a 424 B-5 prospectus, the original

deed of trust and promissory note, and answers to various legal questions. None of these

documents are relevant to plaintiff’s quiet title claim, and the burden of the compelled

Case 3:12-cv-08079-FJM Document 76 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

discovery would outweigh its likely benefit. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

documents is denied (doc. 51).

V

Both parties move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s quiet title claim. To quiet title

a plaintiff must allege that he possesses title to the property, and that he has paid off any

mortgage in full. Farrell v. West, 57 Ariz. 490, 491, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (1941) (“[I]f it

appears there is an unsatisfied balance due a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court

will not quiet the title until and unless he pays off such mortgage lien.”). The mere offer to

pay without actual payment is insufficient to maintain an action to quiet title. 

Plaintiff’s claim to title is questionable. There is a lawful security interest on the

Property that pre-dated plaintiff’s acquisition. Therefore, even assuming plaintiff has any

title to the Property it is subject to that security interest. In the absence of a tender of the full

amount due on the Loan and in a form acceptable to the Bank, plaintiff cannot successfully

maintain an action for quiet title. Plaintiff has not shown that he has paid off the Loan.

Therefore, he is not entitled to quiet title to the Property. Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is denied (doc. 69). The Bank’s motion for summary judgment is granted (doc.

60).

VI

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Bank’s motion to strike sur-reply (doc. 74),

DENYING plaintiff’s motion to compel agency (doc. 63), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion

to compel production of documents (doc. 51).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the Bank’s motion for summary

judgment (doc. 60), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 69).

The clerk shall enter final judgment. 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2013.

Case 3:12-cv-08079-FJM Document 76 Filed 06/19/13 Page 3 of 3