AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Appellee Nationstar Mortgage, LLC initiated foreclosure proceedings against Appellants Frank and Sharon Lukasavage and other named Defendants. The district court granted in rem summary judgment regarding the Appellants' interest in the property and dismissed their counterclaims.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the district court erred by showing bias, improperly granting summary judgment without considering their counterclaims, denying their motion to strike an affidavit, denying their motion to set aside an order granting discovery sanctions against them, dismissing their amended counterclaims, and acting without jurisdiction to grant in rem summary judgment.
• Appellee: Contended that the admitted Requests for Admissions (RFAs) during discovery eliminated any genuine issues of material fact, thereby establishing a prima facie case for foreclosure. Argued that the district court properly admitted the RFAs and that the Appellants' counterclaims were either time-barred or insufficiently pleaded.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the rules of judicial conduct by demonstrating bias against the Appellants.
• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee without properly considering the Appellants' counterclaims and affirmative defenses.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Appellants' motion to strike an affidavit attached to the Appellee's motion for summary judgment.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Appellants' motion to set aside discovery sanctions that led to the admission of Appellee’s RFAs.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Appellants' amended counterclaims.
• Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant in rem summary judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts.

Reasons

• Judicial Misconduct: The Court of Appeals found that it does not administer claims of judicial misconduct, which are properly made to the Judicial Standards Commission. The Appellants failed to provide binding authority or analysis to support their claims of judicial misconduct (paras 3-6).
  Summary Judgment and Affirmative Defenses: The Court concluded that the Appellee established a prima facie case for foreclosure through admitted RFAs, and the Appellants failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding their affirmative defenses. The Court also noted that the Appellants did not meet their burden to demonstrate error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment (paras 9-18).
  Motion to Strike: The Court determined that the district court did not err in denying the Appellants' motion to strike an affidavit because the affidavit was considered admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Additionally, the Court found that the Appellants failed to show how the admission of the affidavit was prejudicial (paras 20-23).
  Motion to Set Aside Discovery Sanctions: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the Appellants' motion to set aside discovery sanctions. The Court noted that the Appellants did not respond to the Appellee’s motion to compel and did not contest the admission of the RFAs until five years after the order had been entered (paras 24-27).
  Amended Counterclaims: The Court declined to address the Appellants' claims regarding their amended counterclaims because they were raised for the first time in the reply brief and were not developed in a clear or compelling manner (paras 29-31).
  In Rem Summary Judgment: The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that the final judgment was void due to the district court losing subject matter jurisdiction, finding the argument undeveloped, unsupported, and unpersuasive (paras 32-35).