Gibson, Ismail Abdul Luke v. Savage

Circuit Court for Charles County
Case No. C-08-CV-25-000453
*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 2310
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
ISMAIL ABDUL LUKE GIBSON
v.
WILLIAM M. SAVAGE, et al.
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 16, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
On December 2, 2025, the Circuit Court for Charles County entered an order
ratifying the foreclosure sale of real property owned by Ismail Abdul Luke Gibson,
appellant. 	Appellant now appeals, raising five issues, which reduce to one: whether the
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to stay the foreclosure sale. 	For the
reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
In May 2025, appellees, the substitute trustees, 1 filed an Order to Docket foreclosure
seeking to foreclose on real property owned by appellant. 	The final loss mitigation
affidavit was filed on July 8, 2025, and appellant did not request foreclosure mediation.
On September 29, 2025, one day before the foreclosure sale was set to take place, appellant
filed an “Emergency Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order.” In that motion,
he stated that he was seeking injunctive relief because appellees had violated various
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Section 7-105 of the Maryland Real Property
Article and 18 U.S.C. § 152(4). 	He did not, however, specify how those statutes were
violated. 	He also generally asserted that appellees had “falsified foreclosure affidavits,
falsified loss mitigation documents and [failed] to abide by 12 CFR 1024.41” because he
had “completed and submitted a complete loan modification application” and the servicer
had stated that the “sale was on hold pending review of the modification application.” The
motion was not made under oath and did not include any supporting exhibits. The property
was sold at auction the following day to Nationstar Mortgage, LLC for $333,679.00. On
October 22, 2025, the court denied appellant’s motion as moot.
1 Appellees are William M. Savage, Gregory N. Britto, and Angela M. Tonello.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
2
On appeal, appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to stay
without holding a hearing to resolve his claims that: (1) he had filed a Mortgage Assistance
Application on August 28, 2025, and (2) he had been informed by the lender that
“foreclosure activity had been placed on hold pending completion of loss mitigation
review.” He further claims that this deprived him of his due process rights and resulted in
“substantial unfairness and procedural irregularity sufficient to warrant vacatur” of the
ratification order. We disagree.
A motion to stay or dismiss a foreclosure action under Maryland Rule 14-211 must
be filed no later than 15 days after the date the final loss mitigation affidavit is filed with
the court. Md. Rule 14-211(a)(2)(A)(i). The plain language of that rule requires the circuit
court to deny the motion if the motion was not timely filed, and the movant did not show
good cause for excusing non-compliance. Md. Rule 14-211(b). The court is also required
to deny the motion if it does not “state with particularity the factual and legal basis” of any
defense the moving party has to the “validity of the lien or the lien instrument or the right
of the plaintiff to foreclose[.]” Md. Rule 14-211(a)(3)(B).
Here, appellant’s motion to stay was filed more than 15 days after the final loss
mitigation affidavit was filed in the circuit court. And in that motion, appellant did not set
forth any cause, much less “good cause,” for why the motion had not been timely filed.2
2 Even assuming that submitting a loss mitigation application could constitute good
cause for extending the time to file a motion to stay pursuant to Rule 14-211, appellant’s
motion did not indicate when he had submitted this new loss mitigation application. And
even if it was completed on August 28, 2025, as he now claims on appeal, he did not explain
why he waited 31 days after he submitted the application to file the motion to stay.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
3
Moreover, none of the claims raised in appellant’s motion were set forth with particularity.
Rather, the motion only raised conclusory allegations of various statutory violations by
appellees. 	And appellant’s claim that he had submitted a loan modification application
was neither made “under oath or supported by affidavit[,]” nor “accompanied by any
supporting documents” as required by Md. Rule 14-211(a)(3)(A)-(C). 	Thus, even if we
assume that the motion was not moot, the court was still required to deny it as it did not
comply with Maryland Rule 14-211. 	Consequently, we shall affirm the judgment of the
circuit court.
JUDGMENT 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT FOR CHARLES COUNTY
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID
BY APPELLANT.