Opinion ID: 1486728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brooks v. GMAC, 96-CA-1222

Text: On February 15, 1996, while Jordan's case against appellants was still pending in Superior Court, appellants filed their own Complaint against GMAC in Superior Court seeking: (1) to set aside the foreclosure of their home; (2) monetary damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duty by their trustees; and (3) to quiet title. The first and third issues were based on the same allegations as those raised by their Plea of Title defense in Jordan Investment, Inc. v. Lewis, supra. The second issue, however, presented an additional claim that appellees Alvin E. Friedman, Esquire and Mark H. Friedman, Esquire breached their fiduciary duty owed to appellants as the appointed substitute trustees for the foreclosure. [3] Specifically, appellants allege that appellees Alvin and Mark Friedman allowed the sale of their home at a shockingly low price. They bolster their argument with the fact that appellees had conflicting interests as they were also counsel for GMAC at the time. The trial court granted GMAC's Motion for Summary Judgment on November 12, 1996, concluding: (1) appellants were unable to set forth specific evidence showing their currency on monthly mortgage payments; (2) appellants failed to establish breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) appellee Jordan was a purchaser in good faith. On January 31, 1997, after motions to reconsider the grant of dismissal in Jordan Investment, Inc. v. Lewis and the grant of summary judgment in Brooks v. GMAC were denied by the respective trial courts, appellants filed this appeal. Both cases have been consolidated on appeal and present the following three issues for our review: [4] (1) whether a triable issue of fact existed as to appellants' currency on their monthly mortgage payments; (2) whether a triable issue of fact existed as to appellees Alvin and Mark Friedman's alleged breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) whether at the time of purchase, appellee Jordan Investment had constructive notice of appellants' claim to the property, thereby precluding Jordan's status as a good faith purchaser.