Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Moore v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Columbia District

September 17, 2015

CAROLYN MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, APPELLEE

Submitted March 17, 2015

THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO FORMAL REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE ATLANTIC AND MARYLAND REPORTERS. USERS ARE REQUESTED TO NOTIFY THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF ANY FORMAL ERRORS SO THAT CORRECTIONS MAY BE MADE BEFORE THE BOUND VOLUMES GO TO PRESS.

Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (CAR-2580-11). (Hon. Thomas J. Motley, Trial Judge).

Affirmed.

Craig A. Butler was on the brief for appellant.

John R. Fischel and James A. Sullivan, Jr., were on the brief for appellee.

Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge, THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and PRYOR, Senior Judge.

OPINION

Page 606

Thompson, Associate Judge.

Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (" Deutsche Bank" ) purchased the real property located at 54 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. (" the property" ), at a foreclosure sale and then brought a complaint for possession in the Landlord Tenant Branch of Superior Court. In response, appellant Carolyn Moore, a defendant in the Landlord Tenant action, filed a plea of title and counterclaim against Deutsche Bank, asserting that she was the rightful owner of the property. After a bench trial, the Superior Court (the Honorable Thomas Motley) rejected the plea of title and counterclaim and granted Deutsche Bank a non-redeemable judgment of possession. On appeal, appellant argues (1) that she provided sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the Deed of Sale that purportedly conveyed her interest in the property was forged; and (2) that she provided sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the real estate transaction

Page 607

was fraudulent.[1] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I.

In her testimony at trial, appellant provided the following background information pertinent to her claims of forgery and fraud: She purchased the property in 2003, financing the purchase with a $426,500 mortgage loan from New Century Mortgage Corporation. Thereafter, struggling to make her mortgage payments, she decided to convert the basement of the property into two condominiums that she could sell or use to generate rental income. After speaking with an architect, appellant believed that she needed $300,000 to pay for the necessary remodeling and set about obtaining a construction loan or a refinancing of her mortgage, so that she could take this amount out of the equity in the property. She was eventually introduced to Darwin Farmer, who she understood to be a loan officer for Premier Mortgage Funding. Appellant testified that Farmer informed her that she could probably get ...


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.