Opinion ID: 1036719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Almeida Loan

Text: Residential demanded Terrace repurchase a loan Terrace made to Julio Almeida and later sold to Residential. The terms of the loan specified Almeida would occupy the house he owned and financed with the loan. Yet shortly after Terrace -11- made the loan, Almeida told Homecomings Financial, LLC, the company Residential hired to service the loan, that he was not living at the property, and asked that mail regarding the loan be sent to a different address. Misrepresenting that a property is one's primary residence is an Event of Default. Appellant's App. 356, 371. Terrace claims Residential knew of this Event of Default but did not notify Terrace of it for nearly two years, derogating its obligation under the contract. Id. at 446. This delay, Terrace argues, constitutes a waiver of Residential's right to demand repurchase, as well as a prior breach excusing Terrace's obligation to perform its end of the bargain. See Space Ctr., Inc. v. 451 Corp., 298 N.W.2d 443, 451 (Minn. 1980) ([A] repudiating party cannot set up the other party's subsequent nonperformance or a breach to avoid liability for its own prior total breach.). Here again, we are not persuaded. Terrace presents no evidence that Homecomings, a loan servicer and legally separate entity from Residential, was required to and actually did inform Residential that Almeida was not living in his owner-occupier-designated property.4 In other words, there is no evidence Residential knew an Event of Default existed but chose not to act on it. For this reason, Terrace's waiver and prior breach arguments cannot succeed. 4 In its brief, Terrace makes the conclusory assertion Homecomings was Residential's agent. Appellant's Br. 41. Although Terrace stated Homecomings was an affiliate of Residential, see Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. 9 n.3, Terrace did not argue Residential and Homecomings had a principal-agent relationship in the district court, and we decline to review its contention for the first time here. See First Union Nat'l Bank ex rel. Se. Timber Leasing Statutory Trust v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 351 F.3d 810, 816 (8th Cir. 2003) ([W]e do not normally consider issues which the district court did not rule upon . . . .). -12-