Submitted November 25, 2014.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (CAR-3260-12). (Hon. Craig Iscoe, Trial Judge).
Charles C. Iweanoge was on the brief for appellant.
Matthew Cohen was on the brief for appellee.
Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and KING, Senior Judge.
King, Senior Judge :
Appellant, Matthew Rogers (" Rogers" ), appeals from the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to Advance Bank, appellee, on a complaint for breach of contract, judicial foreclosure, and/or judicial sale. Rogers argues that the court erred in granting the motion without first requiring that the parties participate in mediation pursuant to D.C. Code § 42-815 (b) and § 42-815.02 (2012 Repl.). After review of the record and relevant statutory provisions, we conclude that summary judgment was proper in this case. In short, we are satisfied that mediation is not specifically required when ordering a judicial sale pursuant to D.C. Code § 42-816 (2012 Repl.). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On April 12, 2012, Advance Bank filed a complaint against Rogers and four other defendants alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy in applying for a residential mortgage loan used by Rogers to purchase a home in the northwest quadrant of the city. Advance Bank claimed that Rogers intentionally submitted false documentation regarding his income, employment, and education when he applied for the residential loan and also certified that information by signing loan documents at the closing. On December 5, 2012, Advance Bank filed an amended complaint against Rogers, which added a claim for breach of contract to the already existing claims. At that point in the proceedings, all of the other defendants had been dismissed from the case. Subsequently, Advance Bank filed a motion for partial summary judgment for the breach of contract and fraud claims. On January 25, 2013, the court granted the motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim in the amount of $720,887.00 (the original amount of the loan), but denied the motion regarding the fraud claim. However, Advance Bank asserted that it was owed an additional amount of $64,555.96 for interest, late fees, and escrow advances. The court reserved judgment with respect to the additional amount because Rogers asserted that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding it.
On July 2, 2013, Advance Bank filed a third amended complaint seeking the additional sum of $64,555.96 discussed above. The amended complaint alleged breach of
contract, judicial foreclosure, and/or judicial sale in the alternative. On July 23, 2013, Advance Bank filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that judicial foreclosure was appropriate because there were no disputed facts regarding Rogers' default. Both parties attended an unsuccessful, court-ordered mediation session, which took place on September 17, 2013. On November 18, 2013, the court granted the summary judgment motion as to the breach of contract claim finding that there was no disputed fact that Rogers defaulted on the residential loan and promissory note, which was evidenced by the record and his admission. The court also granted summary judgment for the judicial sale claim, finding that it held the statutory authority under D.C. Code § 42-816. Although there existed a power of sale provision in the deed of trust, which Advance Bank could have used to initiate foreclosure proceedings under § 42-815, the court found that a judicial sale was appropriate in light of Rogers' opportunity to ...