United States v. Successors of Rhonda W Cathey The

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-23-630-G

)

THE SUCCESSORS OF RHONDA )

W. CATHEY, aka RHONDA )

WYNONA CATHEY-WOOD )

(Deceased) et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Now before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Default

Judgment (Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff seeks entry of a default and foreclosure judgment against

Defendants Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim

Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that a default

and foreclosure judgment should be entered.

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 20, 2023. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). As relevant

here, Plaintiff seeks an in rem judgment against the Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka

Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood in the sum of

$152,506.92 as of July 7, 2023, together with accruing interest at the rate of $7.79 per diem

from July 7, 2023, to the date of judgment; foreclosure of its mortgage lien; determination

of its first lien priority; and sale of the mortgaged premises pursuant to judgment. See id.

at 3. Defendants Tim Wood, Jr. and Jessica Wood were timely served. See Doc. No. 19.

Defendant Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood was

served by publication pursuant to this Court’s Order and was directed to appear within 80

days of the date of the Court’s Order. See Doc. No. 18. Defendants Successors of Rhonda

W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood have

failed to answer or otherwise defend themselves in this lawsuit, and the Clerk has entered

default against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). See Clerk’s Entry

of Default (Doc. No. 25). Plaintiff now seeks entry of a default judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) against Defendants Successors of Rhonda W.

Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood. See Pl.’s

Mot. Default J. (Doc. No. 23) at 2-4.

II. Discussion

A. Procedural Requirements for Entry of Default Judgment

The record reflects that Defendants have failed to answer or plead, that default was

entered by the Clerk, and that Plaintiff’s Motion complies with Local Civil Rule 55.1. See

Clerk’s Entry of Default; Doc. No. 22, at 2; Pl.’s Mot. Default J. at 2. Accordingly,

Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural requirements for entry of a default judgment. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 55(b); LCvR 55.1; see also Tabb v. Mentor Prot. Serv. LLC, No. CIV-17-1130-

D, 2018 WL 3213622, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2018).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

The entry of a default judgment “is committed to the sound discretion of the district

court.” Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016). “Default judgments are

generally disfavored in light of the policy that cases should be tried upon their merits

whenever reasonably possible. Nonetheless, default judgment is viewed as a reasonable

remedy when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive

party.” Tabb, 2018 WL 3213622, at *1 (citing In re Rains, 946 F.2d 731, 732 (10th Cir.

1991)).

Because a default has been entered, Plaintiff is “relieved . . . from having to prove

the complaint’s factual allegations.” Tripodi, 810 F.3d at 765; see also United States v.

Craighead, 176 F. App’x 922, 924 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The defendant, by his default, admits

the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment,

and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.” (internal quotation

marks omitted)). Even after default, however, “it remains for the court to consider whether

the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate basis for the entry of a judgment since a party

in default does not admit conclusions of law.” Mathiason v. Aquinas Home Health Care,

Inc., 187 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1274 (D. Kan. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Complaint and attached exhibits represent that Rhonda W. Cathey defaulted on

a promissory note, including a First Modification of Note, and mortgage on the mortgaged

premises,1 and that the note and mortgage were held by Plaintiff. See Compl. ¶ 2; id. Exs.

1 The legal description of the mortgaged premises is as follows:

THE WEST TWO HUNDRED EIGHT-FOUR (284) FEET OF BLOCK

THREE (3) IN MCCANN DAVIS & MCCANN SOUTH BROADWAY

ADDITION TO OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA COUNTY,

OKLAHOMA, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF.

Property address of 8244 South Harvey Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73139.

Compl. ¶ 4.

1-3 (Doc. Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Consequently, Plaintiff states that it is entitled to judgment

for the amount due on the note, which is:

Principal............................................................$142,284.58

Interest as of July 7, 2023....................................$10,222.34

Amount due as of July 7, 2023......................... $152,506.92

plus accruing interest on the principal at the rate of 1.875% per diem from

July 7, 2023, to the date of judgment.

Compl. ¶ 2; id. Exs. 4, 5 (Doc. Nos. 1-4, 1-5). Plaintiff also represents that it is “entitled

to foreclosure of its first mortgage lien and sale of the mortgaged premises in partial

satisfaction of the note and debt owing.” Compl. ¶ 3.

The Complaint and an attached obituary reflect that Rhonda W. Cathey died on July

18, 2019. Compl. ¶ 5; id. Ex. 6 (Doc. No. 1-6). Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Successors of

Rhonda W. Cathey, (Deceased), Tim Wood, Jr., as spouse of the Defendant, Rhonda W.

Cathey, and Jessica Wood, alleged daughter, may claim some right, title or interest in the

mortgaged premises, but such interests are inferior and subordinate to the prior mortgage

lien of [P]laintiff.” Compl. ¶ 6. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual

allegations and the exhibits attached to the Complaint establish the following:

1) Plaintiff held a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the mortgaged

premises;

2) Rhonda W. Cathey was the debtor on the note;

3) Ms. Cathey defaulted on the note;

4) Ms. Cathey is now deceased;

5) Plaintiff is now entitled to judgment for the amount due on the note plus

interest;

6) Plaintiff’s mortgage is a valid first mortgage lien on the mortgaged

premises; and

7) Plaintiff is entitled to foreclosure of its first mortgage lien and sale of the

mortgaged premises in partial satisfaction of the note and debt owing.

C. Relief Requested

Plaintiff now requests that the Court enter a default and foreclosure judgment in this

action declaring that: (1) Plaintiff’s note and mortgage are in default and the mortgaged

premises should be foreclosed; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to the amount due and owing on the

promissory note and mortgage plus accruing interest on the principal at the rate of 1.875%

per diem from July 7, 2023, to the date of judgment; (3) Plaintiff has a valid first lien on

the subject real property; and (4) a special execution and order of sale shall issue directing

the United States Marshal to levy upon, advertise, and sell the real property described

above with appraisement, free of any right, title, or interest of all defendants, except any

unpaid general and special taxes and special assessments in Oklahoma County, the mowing

liens filed by the City of Oklahoma City, and/or special assessments given priority by law.

Because Defendants the Successors of Rhonda W. Cathey, aka Rhonda Wynona Cathey-

Wood, Tim Wood, Jr., and Jessica Wood have failed to respond to or defend this action in

any way, the Court finds that entry of a default judgment against these Defendants

awarding the requested relief is appropriate.”

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED

as set forth herein. A separate default and foreclosure judgment shall be entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2024.

CHARLES B. GOODWIN

United States District Judge

The Motion states that the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County Treasurer and Board

of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, have agreed to the entry of judgment. See

Pl.’s Mot. Default J. at 2. The State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission,

filed a disclaimer stating that it disclaims having a lien for estate taxes upon the mortgaged

premises. See Disclaimer (Doc. No. 14).