Wade v. GRP Loan, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
In re: 	*
JOHN WADE, 	* 	Case No. 06-14905-DK
Debtor. 	* 	Chapter 13
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
JOHN WADE, 	*
Plaintiff, 	*
Vs. 	* 	Adversary No. 07-0703-DK
GRP LOAN, LLC, 	*
Defendant. 	*
Memorandum of Decision
This adversary complaint was tried on May 20, 2008. At the conclusion of the
evidentiary hearing, the court made a partial ruling. Counsel requested time to brief two
additional issues.
Date signed October 08, 2008
Entered: October 09, 2008 Case 07-00703 Doc 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 3

2
On June 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Line that he would not be filing a post-trial
memorandum. On June 27, 2008 Defendant filed a Line that it too would not be filing a post-
trial memorandum.
On July 11, 2008, the bankruptcy case of the Plaintiff, John Wade, was dismissed for a
material default in his Chapter 13 plan payments. This dismissal has become final by the
passage of time. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case in which this adversary complaint
was filed raises the question whether the dismissal renders this adversary proceeding moot. The
court concludes that it does not, at least in part, because the court, with jurisdiction, tried whether
certain elements of Defendant’s claim asserted against Plaintiff were in fact owed by him to the
Defendant under non-bankruptcy law, and the ruling on those issues will survive the bankruptcy
proceedings. Judicial economy is not served by trying these issues a second time.
At the conclusion of the trial the court made the following partial rulings for the reasons
then stated on the record. First, a $360 claim for “Broker Price Opinion” was disallowed under
MD CL Art. Sec. 12-1027 as, in substance, a prohibited “lender’s inspection fee”. Second, a
claim for $1,010.65 in prior bankruptcy fees was disallowed because there was no prior
bankruptcy by the Debtor after the loan was made. As to both items, the amended claim filed by
Defendant did not satisfy its burden of persuasion to prove its claim once the Debtor had
overcome the prima facie validity of the initial claim, because merely lumping the amount of
these charges as “Balance Forward (from Prior Services)” disclosed only the source of the claim
and not the basis for the claim, i.e. for what valid purpose were these charges made. Denials in
affidavit of improper charges were generic and did not establish the validity of the charges.
Case 07-00703 Doc 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 3

3
Two issues were to be briefed post-trial. The first was whether Plaintiff properly put at
issue in his complaint or otherwise in this adversary proceeding that Defendant’s August, 2006
foreclosure proceeding was illegal as to the Plaintiff and caused the Plaintiff recoverable
damages. Defendant’s objection is sustained. Plaintiff did not properly raise this issue, and the
court will not, and did not, rule on it. The second issue that Plaintiff wanted to brief was whether
the foreclosure proceeding was illegal under Maryland law because Defendant had not recorded
the assignment to it of the deed of trust before commencing the foreclosure proceeding, even if
the deed of trust assignment to Defendant had been made before foreclosure proceedings were
initiated. This issue was likewise not properly raised, and is not considered by the court. It may
have been an improper collateral attack, and in any event appears mooted in this case.
A separate order will be entered accordingly.
cc: 	Andrew G. Wilson, II, Esquire
275 West Street
Suite 216
Annapolis, Maryland 	21401
Kevin R. Feig, Esquire
Bierman, Geesing & Ward, LLC
4520 East-West Highway, Suite 200
Bethesda, Maryland 	20814
Ellen Cosby, Trustee
P.O. Box 20016
Baltimore, Maryland 	21284-0016
Case 07-00703 Doc 44 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 3