From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brunk v. Conseco Bank Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Sep 19, 2018
Case No. 1:17-CV-188-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sep. 19, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:17-CV-188-SNLJ

09-19-2018

GLENDA BRUNK, Plaintiff, v. CONSECO BANK INC. and U.S. BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR CONSECO FINANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2002-A, Defendants.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's "Emergency Motion Seeking Court Order for U.S. Bank to Produce the Original Note" (#29). This Court previously dismissed plaintiff's wrongful acceleration claim (Count I) against U.S. Bank because plaintiff's claim was based upon copies, not originals, of the Note and allonges. (#27 at p. 6). However, it was explained that plaintiff "may examine the original Note and allonges and refile." (Id.). Since then, plaintiff has apparently been unable to meet with U.S. Bank's representatives in Chicago, Illinois, to review the original documents and therefore demands "an order from this court directing U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee to produce the original Note on [plaintiff's home] in Ellington, MO, together with all allonges, indorsements, or other related documents at the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Missouri at the Federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO[.]" (#29 at p. 1). U.S. Bank opposes the motion (#31), arguing "there is no basis to force U.S. Bank to bear this cost or [its attorney] to bear the burden of traveling several hours each way." (#31 at p. 3). U.S. Bank also points out the document must be "closely guarded" because the original Note and allonges are bearer paper, and a holder of bearer paper may enforce it just by possessing it. (#31 at p. 4). Finally, U.S. Bank notes it has proposed times for which plaintiff could view the original Note and allonges in Chicago, but indicates it received no response. (#31 at p. 2-3).

The Court agrees with U.S. Bank. Plaintiff, who did not file a reply brief, offers no explanation as to why U.S. Bank should bear this cost. Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "Emergency Motion Seeking Court Order for U.S. Bank to Produce the Original Note" (#29) is DENIED.

So ordered this19th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brunk v. Conseco Bank Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Sep 19, 2018
Case No. 1:17-CV-188-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sep. 19, 2018)
Case details for

Brunk v. Conseco Bank Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GLENDA BRUNK, Plaintiff, v. CONSECO BANK INC. and U.S. BANK N.A. AS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 19, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:17-CV-188-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sep. 19, 2018)