Opinion
No. 2012AP2077.
2013-10-17
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. James A. POLEY, Defendant–Appellant, Yvonne Poley, FIA Card Services N.A., Landmark Services Cooperative and NCEP LLC, Defendants.
Counsel for GMAC argued in response that GMAC was a proper assignee of the mortgage. Separately, GMAC argued that it does not matter whether GMAC had shown a proper chain of assignments from Monona State Bank to MERS to GMAC, so long as GMAC had shown that it possesses the original note. At the end of this exchange, the circuit court asked that GMAC include, in its response to the new supplemental brief that Poley would be submitting, authority supporting GMAC's assertion that proof of the chain of assignment of the mortgage does not matter, given its possession of the note. Id. at 577 (citations omitted). Thus, if we were to follow the interpretation stated in Martin–Trigona, even absent the supplemental order, Poley was free to oppose GMAC's motion for summary judgment. Poley did not file a reply brief, and, thus, he does not respond to GMAC's characterization of Martin–Trigona. Given Poley's lack of response, we may consider Poley to have conceded the proposition that the automatic stay did not prevent Poley from defending against the foreclosure action by responding in opposition to the summary judgment motion. See Apple Hill Farms Dev., LLP v. Price, 2012 WI App 69, ¶ 19, 342 Wis.2d 162, 816 N.W.2d 914 (appellant's argument may be deemed conceded where respondent fails to file a reply brief).