Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Davis v. Mid State Homes

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

March 12, 2019





         Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Mid State Homes ("Mid State") and Green Tree Servicing LLC ("Green Tree"), asking the Court to strike or dismiss the pleading filed by Patrick Davis ("Plaintiff) entitled "Plaintiffs Second Motion to Amend Pleading." [Record Document 26]. Defendants allege that this pleading does not satisfy minimum pleading standards and is not actionable as a matter of law. [Record Document 27]. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.


         Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this civil action against Mid State on December 1, 2017. Record Document 1. He then sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint to include Green Tree as a defendant. Record Documents 2-4. Defendants subsequently filed their first motion to dismiss.[1] Record Document 11. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment. Record Document 18. This Court denied both Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Record Document 23. The Court instructed Plaintiff to provide additional information regarding his fraud claim and his claims under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). Id. at 4 & 12. Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint. Record Document 26. Defendants responded by filing a second motion to dismiss. Record Document 27. The motion is opposed. Record Documents 31 &


         Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a construction and mortgage agreement with Mid State in September of 2002 whereby Mid State would construct a dwelling on a lot Plaintiff owned in Shreveport ("the property"). Record Document 26, p. 3. A mortgage on the property was recorded. Record Document 1, p. 1. Plaintiff claims that the property "has not been conveyed from ownership by the Plaintiff pursuant to any [s]tate [s]tatute of Louisiana." Record Document 26, p. 3. Plaintiff states that he found employment in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in February of 2006 but did not "relinquish[] his residence in Shreveport, LA." Record Document 36, p. 3. The Court interprets this to mean that Plaintiff has not lived on the property since February of 2006.

         Plaintiff states that Mid State[2] conducted a seizure of his property in February 2006. Id. at 7. This seizure was allegedly done without notice to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff claims that because he "served on periods of active military duty from May 2005 through November 2006," this seizure violated the SCRA. Id. at 12. Mid State allegedly violated the SCRA when it seized his property in February 2006 without notice and before the expiration of the time period provided by the SCRA to withhold a foreclosure, repossession, seizure, or sale of the property of a servicemember who is ordered to active military duty. Id. at 12.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was issued an IRS Form 1099-C for Cancellation of Debt related to the property for the 2007 tax year, and that this document is recorded. Record Documents 26, p. 3; 4, p. 2. According to Plaintiff, this document cancelled a large portion of Plaintiff s debt owed on the mortgage "without explanation." Record Document 26, p. 3. Plaintiff claims that this document caused him to continue to believe that he owned the property, but also claims that he periodically inspected the web sites for the City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish to see if his property would "become listed as being in jeopardy and of becoming adjudicated...." Id. at 3-4 & 9.

         After noticing a decrease in the assessment of ad valorem taxes on the property, Plaintiff discovered that an individual named Wallete T. Willis was granted a homestead exemption on the property and appeared to be living there. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also discovered that "the Defendant or an agent thereof previously "attempted to [m]ortgage" the property to two individuals named Christopher B. Thomas and Sheira M. Forster. Id. This mortgage was allegedly enacted without notice to Plaintiff and is recorded in the "Caddo Parish Court civil docket." Id. Plaintiff has attempted, but has been unable, to contact Wallete T. Willis and inquire as to why he or she is inhabiting his property. Id.

         On December 1, 2017, after filing his original complaint, Plaintiff discovered that Green Tree conveyed the property to an unknown party in May of 2013. Id. at 5. He claims the conveyance is recorded and is entitled, "Quitclaim Deed, Vendor's Lien and Special Mortgage." Id. Despite this conveyance, Plaintiff claims that he has not "relinquished his ownership of the property. Id.

         Plaintiff makes several other complaints against Defendants, including claims that they refused to accept payments from Plaintiff that were made in an attempt to fulfill his mortgage obligations (id at 9); that the mortgage contract between himself and Mid State contains "conflicting obligations" that should be interpreted in his favor (id at 10); and that Defendants recorded a "false duplicate" mortgage in the Caddo Parish Court, which Plaintiff wishes to have cancelled (id. at 15).

         In his original and his first amended complaint, Plaintiff suggests several forms of relief, including a refund of all payments made to Mid State, compensation for personal items lost when the property was seized, and compensation for the lot upon which the dwelling was built. See Record Document 4, p. 3; 1, p. 2.

         In their second motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff still fails to satisfy minimum pleading standards. Record Document 27-1, p. 5. Defendants also claim that Plaintiff does not have private a right of action under the SCRA and that any SCRA claim Plaintiff might have would be time-barred. Id. at 6. In response, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Strike," which was construed by this Court as an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Record Documents 31 & 32. Plaintiff also filed a "Motion for Leave to Submit Notice of Constitutional Question," which this Court construed as a supplemental opposition to the motion to dismiss. Record Documents 34-36. In these filings, Plaintiff complains that Defendants' defenses are "impertinent," "disrespectful and unconstitutional," that the motion to dismiss is written in an "instructional type of language," and that Defendants' argument that the statute of limitations has run in this case is unconstitutional. Record Documents 31, p. 4; 36, p. 5. Plaintiff also claims that the seizure of his residence in 2006 by Mid State constituted a violation of his First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that 28 U.S.C. § 1658, which Defendants cite in support of their argument that the statute of limitations has run on Plaintiffs claims, is unconstitutional. Record Document 36, pp. 6-9.


         I. Rule ...

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.