Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. Citimortgage

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

March 27, 2015

PEPPY MARTIN, Plaintiff,


GREG N. STIVERS, District Judge.

Before the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (DN 5, 10). Farm Credit Services of Mid-America ("Farm Credit") moves for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), for insufficient service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), and for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Citimortgage seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for similar reasons under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Further, Farm Credit moves to strike portions of Plaintiff's response to Citimortgage's motion to dismiss. (DN 15). The Court will also address Plaintiff's several other motions. Because the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction, the motions to dismiss (DN 5, 10) are GRANTED. All other motions are DENIED.


Plaintiff Peppy Martin ("Martin") seeks redress for alleged fraud; violations of the "Truth in Lending" Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1603; and violations of the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement (DN 1 ¶ 7). (DN 1 ¶¶ 1, 5, 7).

In 2000, Martin bought several parcels of land in Hart County, Kentucky. (DN 1 ¶ 1). Her primary residence sits on one ten-acre parcel. Contiguous with this parcel, Martin owns an additional 88.6 acres of farmland including outbuildings and other improvements.

In 2003, Plaintiff borrowed $202, 500 from Farm Credit which was secured by a mortgage on her property. (DN 1 at 3). She contends that while the mortgage included the entire 98.6 acres, it should have included only the ten-acre residential parcel. Martin has alleged that this mortgage was sold to Citimortgage in 2007. (DN 1 at 3). As alleged in the Complaint, she received an additional $152, 517 loan from Farm Credit in 2007 for which she pledged the entire property as collateral. (DN 1 at 3). Farm Credit filed for foreclosure on this property in December 2009, and Citimortgage foreclosed in August 2010. (DN 7 at 9).


A. Motions to Dismiss[1]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires plaintiffs to state in their complaint the grounds for jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this Complaint without an attorney or "pro se." "[P]ro se complaints are liberally construed and are held to less stringent standards than the formal pleadings prepared by attorneys." Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 2012). Where no jurisdictional facts are in dispute, motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) are analyzed similarly. A court takes the allegations in the complaint as true and makes a determination whether jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Rule 12(b)(1) aspect of the motion, or whether a claim has been stated pursuant to the Rule 12(b)(6) aspect. See Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320 (6th Cir. 1990). When jurisdictional facts are disputed, however, a court weighs the evidence and makes a factual determination. Id. at 325. In such situations, "a trial court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, documents and even a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts." Id. In this case, there does not exist complete diversity which requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts have original jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states exceeding $75, 000. "Since [1806]" the Supreme Court "ha[s] read the formulation between... citizens of different States' to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Section 1332 also specifies that corporations be deemed citizens "of every state... by which it has been incorporated." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Thus, diversity jurisdiction is unavailable as the parties are not completely diverse.

In Martin's response to Farm Credit's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff argues Farm Credit is not a citizen of Kentucky because loan payments were mailed to an address in Indiana. (DN 7 at 16). This argument, however, ignores the statutory provision defining Farm Credit's citizenship. That statutory definition provides:

Each institution of the [Farm Credit] System shall for the purposes of jurisdiction be deemed to be a citizen of the State, commonwealth, or District of Columbia in which its principal office is located.

12 U.S.C. § 2258. This branch of Farm Credit has its principal office in Louisville, Kentucky, as provided in its Charter. (Ex. A, DN 5-3). Because both Plaintiff and one of Defendants, Farm Credit, are citizens of Kentucky, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over this dispute.

To the extent that diversity jurisdiction existed, Martin's fraud claims would be timebarred. The Complaint alleges the Citimortgage loan was consummated on January 20, 2003. (Compl. 3). The Farm Credit mortgage was consummated on August 12, 2007. (Compl. 3). Martin did not file this lawsuit until September 24, 2014. Because Plaintiff alleges the fraud occurred before any mortgages were signed, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.