Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1894
INC.;
MORTGAGE
as mortgagee and
ELECTRONIC
nominee of
Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(3:13-cv-00691-RMG)
Submitted:
Decided:
April 8, 2014
PER CURIAM:
Appellant
Mattie
Stephens
appeals
the
district
court's
She contends
that the district court erred by finding that her claim was not
ripe for adjudication and abused its discretion by failing to
show good cause for its refusal to consider her motion on the
merits.
I.
Stephens is a South Carolina homeowner who is currently
delinquent on her mortgage payments.
Services,
Inc.
is
the
assignee
of
the
lenders
rights
to
Systems,
Inc.
holds
security
interest
as
because
it
includes
an
improper
waiver
of
the
Appellees
her
property
the
allegedly
deficiency
contract.
similarly
from
foreclosing
judgment
Finally,
pursuant
on
to
situated
Stephens
South
seeks
Carolina
to
or
void
represent
homeowners
seeking
whose
mortgage
class
of
mortgage
Stephens does
On
The
II.
We review de novo the issue of whether a district court
possessed
jurisdiction
in
declaratory
judgment
proceeding.
Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., 386 F.3d
581,
591
(4th
Cir.
2004).
If
plaintiff
has
asserted
Id.
III.
The district court held that Stephenss cause of action was
not ripe, and therefore not justiciable, because it is uncertain
whether
her
challenged.
right
to
appraisement
will
ever
be
asserted
or
A claim satisfies
the
if
the
real,
case
or
contentions
controversy
of
the
requirement
parties...present
conflicting
substantial
prevents
controversy
is
form...problems
judicial
consideration
presented
such
as
the
in
clean-cut
inadequacy
4
of
of
issues
and
the
until
concrete
record...or
ambiguity
in
the
record...will
288
(4th
Cir.
2010)
make
merits
of
case
unfit
for
declaratory
in
original)
(internal
judgment
action
only
when
afford
controversy
relief
giving
from
rise
to
the
uncertainty,
the
proceeding.
insecurity,
Volvo
and
Constr.
Equip., 386 F.3d at 594. (quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.
Quarles, 92 F.2d 321, 325 (4th Cir. 1937)).
Stephens contends that her declaratory judgment action is
ripe because all of the relevant facts are before the court, she
has already been injured by the formation of the illegal clause
in the contract, the parties have taken adverse positions on the
enforceability of the contract, and the Appellees have a present
right to foreclose on Stephenss property. 2
We have previously
Cir. 2011).
identical
postures.
In
Horvath,
as
in
this
action,
the
judgment
stating
that
defendant]
cannot
been
plaintiff]
threatened,
[the
cannot
yet
show
been
threatened
Like
the
or
plaintiff
initiated
in
by
Horvath,
the
Appellees
Stephens
in
seeks
this
an
case.
advisory
IV.
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
the
district
courts