The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAWRENCE ISAAC BROWNE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-7336
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL SECTION: “G”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants Summit Funding, Inc. and PHH Mortgage Corporation’s
(collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment.1 Plaintiffs Lawrence Isaac Browne
and Randolph Browne (collectively “Plaintiffs”) obtained a mortgage loan through Defendants.2
In this litigation, Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that the loan is not in default.3 In the instant
motion, Defendants argue that due to misrepresentations made by Plaintiffs during underwriting,
Plaintiffs have defaulted on the home loan.4 Therefore, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs claims
should be dismissed in their entirety. Considering the motion, the opposition, the reply
memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion.
I. Background
On October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs closed on their home mortgage for immovable property
located at 425 Cedarwood Drive, Mandeville, Louisiana 70471.5 In the days leading up to
1 Rec. Doc. 39.
2 Rec. Doc. 1.
3 Rec. Doc. 1-1.
4 Rec. Doc. 39.
5 Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 1.
Plaintiffs’ closing on the property, Summit Funding, Inc.’s (“Summit”) Loan Officer, Debra
Macaluso (“Macaluso”), contacted Plaintiffs’ mother/grandmother, Judith Browne, to notify
Plaintiffs of an issue concerning Randolph Browne’s (“Randolph”) purchase of a recreational
vehicle (“RV”).6 According to the petition, between the time Plaintiffs applied for the mortgage at
issue and the closing on October 22, 2021, Randolph purchased a RV, but had not yet taken
delivery of the RV.7
Macaluso asked Plaintiffs to explain the credit inquiries associated with the RV purchase.8
On October 17, 2021, Judith Browne corresponded with Lindsey Hernaez (“Hernaez”) via email,
stating that “8/11/21 all of these inquiries were because I was shopping for an RV or Trailer for
my work. Due to the fact that I receive per Diem [sic] for lodging and I thought about having a
trailer to take my job as so many employees do. The sales co. was shopping to find the best interest
rate. No new debt was acquired.”9 Judith Browne was not a signatory to any loan nor was she an
account holder with either named defendant.10 Based on this correspondence, Plaintiffs contend
Summit was fully aware of Randolph’s purchase of the RV.11
According to the petition, Plaintiffs made each payment due on the mortgage for nearly
two years.12 By letter dated August 31, 2023, PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) notified
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
Plaintiffs of its intent to foreclose on the mortgage “based on the recent payment activity.”13 On
the same date, Plaintiffs received a letter from The Law Offices of Herscel C. Adcock, LLC
(“Adcock”), notifying Plaintiffs that their mortgage with Summit was being accelerated “due to
misrepresentations made on your loan application.”14 By letter dated September 1, 2023, Summit
sent Plaintiffs their regularly monthly mortgage statement indicating that their regular monthly
payment of $833.56 was due and outstanding.15
The petition states that Plaintiffs made their regular monthly payments in the amount of
$833.56 for September and October 2023, but these payments were returned to Plaintiffs.16
Plaintiffs requested additional information, and by letter dated September 19, 2023, Adock advised
that $118,602.18 was immediately due and owing.17 By letter dated October 9, 2023, PHH advised
Plaintiffs that $128,844.05 was immediately due and owing.18
On October 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a petition and rule to show cause in the 22nd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, seeking judgment declaring that the loan is not in
default.19 On December 18, 2023, Defendants removed the matter to this Court based on diversity
subject matter jurisdiction.20
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 3.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Rec. Doc. 1-1.
20 Rec. Doc. 1.
On August 5, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment.21 On
August 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion.22 On August 15, 2025, Defendants
filed a reply memorandum in further support of the motion.23
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Defendants’ Arguments in Support of the Motion
According to Defendants, this is a declaratory judgment and injunction action.24
Defendants state that on September 24, 2021, Judith Browne and Macaluso had a telephone call to
discuss inquiries on Randolph’s credit report.25 According to Defendants, Judith Browne told
Macaluso that she did not know whether Randolph had purchased an RV.26 Defendants contend
that following the phone call, Judith Browne provided a hand-written letter stating the following:
I was thinking about purchasing RV for work due to fact that I have to stay in hotel
and the hotel is pd. by co. via per diem ck. This could have gone on to RV instead
of Hotel Room. Never knew they did this many credit checks. Thought they were
just trying to get me a good interest rate. --- I was only speculating if it would merit
owning one --- I did not secure a new debt with any of these finance companies.27
On October 15, 2021, Summit ran updated credit reports, and Randolph’s credit report
indicated that he applied for an RV loan.28 Defendants explain Randolph’s credit report contained
six separate credit inquiries dated August 11, 2021, which were referenced by Judith Browne in
21 Rec. Doc. 39.
22 Rec. Doc. 40.
23 Rec. Doc. 42.
24 Rec. Doc. 39-1. The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ original petition does not mention injunctive relief.
25 Id. at 4.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 5.
her handwritten note.29 On October 17, 2021, Defendants contend that Judith Browne sent an email
to Lindsey Hernaez which stated:
Hi, Lindsey, 6/26/2021 Citibank that was a credit line increase check. No new debt
acquired. 07/2/2021 Factual Data That was Quicken loan Mortgage Shopping.
08/11/21 all of these inquiries were because I was shopping for an RV or Trailer
for my work. due to the fact that I receive perdiem for lodging and I thought about
having a trailer to take to my job as so many employees do. the sales co. was
shopping to find the best interest rate. No new debt was acquired. Thank you.
Randolph Browne.30
Defendants explain that between July 27, 2021 through October 10, 2021, Judith Browne
sent Macaluso no less than 21 emails with information and documentation needed for the Summit
loan application process, and none of the emails disclosed that Randolph had taken out the RV
loan.31 Defendants cite Macaluso’s deposition testimony stating that she spoke with Judith Browne
multiple times throughout the application process, and Judith Browne told her that Randolph had
not purchased an RV and had not taken out an RV loan.32
Defendants contend that on October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs as joint borrowers, signed a final
Uniform Residential Loan Application (“Application”), wherein Plaintiffs made the following
representations:
I agree to, acknowledge, and represent the following:
(1) The Complete Information for this Application The information I have provided
in this application is true, accurate and complete as of the date I signed this
application. If the information I submitted changes or I have new information
before closing of the Loan, I must change and supplement this application,
including providing any updated/supplemental real estate sales contract. For
purchase transactions: The terms and conditions of any real estate contract signed
by me in connection with this application are true, accurate, and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief. I have not entered into any other agreement,
29 Id.
30 Id. at 6.
31 Id.
32 Id.
written or oral, in connection with this real estate transaction.
The Lender and Other Loan Participants may rely on the information contained in
the application before and after the closing of the Loan. Any intentional or negligent
misrepresentation of information may result in the imposition of:
(a) civil liability on me, including monetary damages, if a person suffers any loss
because the person relied on any misrepresentation made on this application and/or
(b) criminal penalties on me including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or
both under the provisions of Federal Law (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq.).33
In the Application, Plaintiffs also made the following representations:
Section 5(D)(2): “Have you or will you be applying for any new credit (e.g.
installment loan, credit card, etc.) on or before closing this loan that is not disclosed
in this application?”
Answer: “No.”34
Defendants explain that in the application, Plaintiffs disclosed the debts they owed as of
October 22, 2021, and the RV loan was not included.35 At the closing on October 22, 2021,
Defendants state that Plaintiffs signed a promissory note payable to Summit in the original
principal amount of $121,500.00, and Defendants executed a mortgage over the property to secure
the amounts owed on the note.36
Defendants state that during their depositions, Plaintiffs testified that they never told
anyone that Randolph had taken out the RV loan.37 Defendants contend that Judith Browne also
testified that she never told anyone at Summit about the RV loan because she did not know that
Randolph had bought the RV.38 Defendants argue it is undisputed that neither Plaintiffs nor Judith
33 Id. at 6–7.
34 Id. at 7–8.
35 Id. at 8.
36 Id. at 9.
37 Id.
38 Id.
Browne ever disclosed the RV loan.39
Defendants state that Plaintiffs also certified in the application that they would live in the
underlying property as their principal residence, however, Defendants contend that Randolph has
never lived in the property.40 Defendants submit that in Paragraph 8 of the mortgage, Plaintiffs
agreed and acknowledged that they would be in default of the loan if they, or any person acting at
their direction or consent, gave any false, misleading, or inaccurate statements and if they failed
to live in the property as their primary residence.41 Defendants aver that Plaintiffs’ representations
regarding their existing debts and Randolph living in the property as his principal residence were
false.42 Defendants aver that had the RV loan been disclosed and included in the underwriting
calculations, Plaintiffs’ debt to income ratio would have exceeded 50% and they would not have
qualified for the loan.43
On August 17, 2022, Summit sent Plaintiffs a letter notifying them that it had discovered
the RV loan and that Plaintiffs’ failure to include the RV loan in the application was a breach of
the loan.44 Defendants contend that, as of the date of the motion for summary judgment, no
foreclosure action has been filed.45
Defendants argue that based on the alleged misrepresentations, Plaintiffs defaulted on the
39 Id.
40 Id. at 9–10.
41 Id. at 10.
42 Id. at 11.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
loan.46 Defendants aver that certain bankruptcy courts have found that misrepresentations in loan
applications resulted in a finding that the debt was not subject to discharge.47 Defendants assert
that Summit did everything it could to verify Plaintiffs’ debts.48 Defendants contend there is no
legitimate dispute that Plaintiffs made material misrepresentations regarding Randolph’s
outstanding debts and Randolph’s intention to live in the property as his primary residence, and
due to these misrepresentations, the loan was properly called due.49 Therefore, Defendants argue
that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice.50
B. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Opposition to the Motion
In opposition, Plaintiffs posit that Summit was fully apprised of the RV loan, and Summit’s
representatives assisted Plaintiffs with how to work around the RV loan to close on the home
loan.51 According to Plaintiffs, Macaluso instructed Judith Browne to write a letter “explaining
away the RV” to close on the home loan.52 Plaintiffs assert that Summit was aware of the RV
loan.53 Plaintiffs state that Judith Browne’s testimony implies that both Macaluso and Hernaez
were aware of the RV loan.54 Plaintiffs contend discovery has revealed that Summit was aware of
46 Id. at 13.
47 Id. at 13–14.
48 Id. at 15.
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Rec. Doc. 40 at 1.
52 Id. at 3–4.
53 Id. at 5.
54 Id. at 6.
the loan and instructed Judith Browne to craft a letter to get around the RV loan.55 Plaintiffs argue
that Defendants must prove that they justifiably relied on Plaintiffs’ misrepresentations in deciding
to extend credit.56 Plaintiffs aver there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Summit
was aware of the RV loan at the time of closing.57
C. Defendants’ Arguments in Further Support of the Motion
In further support of the motion, Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ opposition is contrary to
the sworn deposition testimony.58 Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ position relies solely on
testimony by Judith Browne that somehow “implied” that Summit was aware of the RV loan before
the loan closed.59 Defendants aver that Plaintiffs’ argument is the opposite of the testimony of
Plaintiffs, Judith Browne and Macaluso.60
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs failed to rebut Defendants’ statement of uncontested
facts, and the statement of material facts provided by Plaintiffs provide only conclusory statements
which have been proven false by deposition testimony.61 Defendants state that Judith Browne
testified that neither Macaluso, Hernaez, nor anyone else at Summit ever told her that they knew
that Randolph bought an RV and had taken out the RV loan.62 According to Defendants, Judith
Browne testified Summit told her that they saw the inquiries on Randolph’s credit report indicating
55 Id. at 7.
56 Id. (citing Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 116 S.Ct. 437, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995)).
57 Id. at 8.
58 Rec. Doc. 42 at 1.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 2.
62 Id. at 4.
he might have applied for a loan.63 Defendants provide deposition excerpts wherein Judith Browne
testified that she did not know if Randolph took out a RV loan when questioned by Summit.64
Defendants contend that Macaluso testified she first learned of the RV loan a year or two after the
loan closed.65 Defendants aver that there is no dispute Judith Browne told Macaluso and Hernaez
both verbally and in writing that Randolph did not buy an RV and that he did not take out a loan
to buy an RV.66 Defendants contend that Macaluso testified she told Judith Browne that she needed
something in writing explaining the credit inquiries and confirming that Randolph did not take out
a loan to buy an RV, but she did not “dictate” the letter and she did not tell Judith Browne to sign
the letter.67 According to Defendants, Judith Browne’s contention that she was told what to say
does not get around the fact Judith Browne told Summit that Randolph had not taken out the RV
loan.68
While Plaintiffs argue that Summit did not justifiably rely on misrepresentations regarding
the RV loan, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs certified in their application that they disclosed all
of their debts and that they had not applied for any other loans.69 Defendants state that Plaintiffs
agreed in the mortgage that they would be in default of the loan if they failed to disclose any debts
on the application and if they failed to live in the property as their principal residence.70 Defendants
63 Id.
64 Id. at 5.
65 Id.
66 Id. at 6.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 7.
70 Id.
assert, all things considered, it is impossible to say that Summit’s reliance on Plaintiffs’ false
representations was somehow unjustified.71
III. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits
demonstrate “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.”72 To decide whether a genuine dispute as to any material fact exists, the court
considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations
or weighing the evidence.”73 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party.74 Yet “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and
conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”75
If the entire record “could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,” then
no genuine issue of fact exists and, consequently, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.76 The nonmoving party may not rest upon the pleadings.77 Instead, the nonmoving
party must identify specific facts in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that
71 Id.
72 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
73 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398–99 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).
74 Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Reeves, 530 U.S. at
150).
75 Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
76 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of
Ariz. v. Cites Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
77 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
evidence establishes a genuine issue for trial.78
The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of showing the
basis for its motion and identifying record evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.79 “To satisfy this burden, the movant may either (1) submit evidentiary
documents that negate the existence of some material element of the opponent’s claim or defense,
or (2) if the crucial issue is one on which the opponent will bear the ultimate burden of proof at
trial, demonstrate that the evidence in the record insufficiently supports an essential element of the
opponent’s claim or defense.”80 If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden shifts to
the nonmoving party to “identify specific evidence in the record, and to articulate” precisely how
that evidence supports the nonmoving party’s claims.81 The nonmoving party must set forth
“specific facts showing the existence of a ‘genuine’ issue concerning every essential component
of its case.”82
The nonmovant’s burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact is not satisfied
merely by creating “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” “by conclusory allegations,
by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.”83 Moreover, the nonmoving party
may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in its pleadings.84
78 See id.; Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998).
79 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
80 Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted).
81 Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994); see also Morris v.
Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).
82 Morris, 144 F.3d at 380; see also Bellard v. Gautreaux, 675 F.3d 454, 460 (5th Cir. 2012).
83 Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
84 Morris, 144 F.3d at 380.
IV. Analysis
Defendants seek summary judgment in their favor, arguing that Plaintiffs defaulted on their
home loan by: (1) failing to disclose a debt during the application process; and (2) Randolph did
not live in the home as his primary residence despite the contractual obligation to do so. In
opposition, Plaintiffs contend that a representative of Summit instructed them to misrepresent
information during the loan process.
Under Louisiana law, the rights, duties, and obligations between a mortgagor and
mortgagee are defined by the mortgage agreement which serves as the law between the parties.85
“Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties.”86 If the
terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, “no further interpretation may be made in search
of the parties’ intent.”87 It is well settled in Louisiana law that a party who signs a written
instrument is presumed to know its contents.88
In Paragraph 8 of the Mortgage, Plaintiffs agreed and acknowledged that they would be in
default of the loan if they, or any person acting at their direction or consent, gave any false,
misleading, or inaccurate statements and if they failed to live in the Property as their principal
residence:
Borrower shall be in default if, during the Loan application process, Borrower or
any persons or entities acting at the direction of Borrower or with Borrowers
knowledge or consent gave materially false, misleading, or inaccurate information
or statements to Lender (or failed to provide Lender with material information) in
connection with Loan. Material representations include, but are not limited to,
85 Burks v. Prudential Ins. Co. of N. Am., 06-4173, 2009 WL 2366105, at *2 (E.D. La. July 28, 2009), aff'd,
388 F. App'x 387 (5th Cir. 2010).
86 La. Civ. Code art. 2045.
87 La. Civ. Code art. 2046.
88 Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 04–2804 (La.6/29/05), 908 So.2d 1, 23 (citing Tweedel v.
Brasseaux, 433 So.2d 133, 137 (La. 1983)).
representations concerning Borrower’s occupancy of the Property as Borrower’s
principal residence.89
It is undisputed that on October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs as joint borrowers, signed a final
Uniform Residential Loan Application, wherein Plaintiffs made the following representations:
I agree to, acknowledge, and represent the following:
(1) The Complete Information for this Application The information I have provided
in this application is true, accurate and complete as of the date I signed this
application. If the information I submitted changes or I have new information
before closing of the Loan, I must change and supplement this application,
including providing any updated/supplemental real estate sales contract. For
purchase transactions: The terms and conditions of any real estate contract signed
by me in connection with this application are true, accurate, and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief. I have not entered into any other agreement,
written or oral, in connection with this real estate transaction.
The Lender and Other Loan Participants may rely on the information contained in
the application before and after the closing of the Loan. Any intentional or negligent
misrepresentation of information may result in the imposition of:
(a) civil liability on me, including monetary damages, if a person suffers any loss
because the person relied on any misrepresentation made on this application and/or
(b) criminal penalties on me including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or
both under the provisions of Federal Law (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq.).90
In the Application, Plaintiffs also made the following representations:
Section 5(D)(2): “Have you or will you be applying for any new credit (e.g.
installment loan, credit card, etc.) on or before closing this loan that is not disclosed
in this application?”
Answer: “No.”91
It is undisputed that Randolph acquired an RV loan during the mortgage application
process. In dispute is whether Summit had knowledge of the RV loan, and whether Summit’s
representative instructed Judith Browne to misrepresent information during the loan process.
The Court has carefully reviewed the cited deposition testimony, and the record does not
89 Rec.Doc. 39-1 at 10.
90 Id. at 6–7.
91 Id. at 7–8.
support Plaintiffs’ characterizations. Judith Browne does not state that she was coached to lie or
make misrepresentations during the loan process. Judith Browne’s relevant deposition testimony
reads as follows:
Q: So, Debra Macaluso is the one who asked you about –
A: Yes, all of that.
Q: -- this list?
A: She gave me that information.
Q: Okay.
A: I couldn’t have gotten it any other way, because I didn’t have a copy of his credit
report or anything.
Q: Okay. Did she say why she was asking you about these lenders first, US Bank
and then down through Bank of the West?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did she say?
A: She told me, because on the credit thing, they showed that there was an RV that
was purchased. And, she said, I can’t do the loan. We would have to redo the whole
loan to get him approved again. She said, because this went onto – you know, it
was after the first acknowledging.
…
Q: Now, was she asking about – was her question about, we saw applications about
–
A: No. She wanted to know if he purchased it or not.
Q: Okay.
A: And I told her, I said, I’m not sure whether he did. I said, I know he was looking
into one.
Q: Okay.
A: She said, it’s done all the time, you know, they write letters.
Q: So, you told her during that call, though, that you weren’t really sure if he bought
one or not?
A: Right.92
Judith Browne further testified:
Q: Did you tell anybody on the phone at Summit before October 22, 2021, that
Randolph had taken out the RV loan?
A: No. Because I don’t even know that really I knew if he had taken out the loan.93
…
A: This email is the letter that she told me, excuse me, to send over to them in order
to get the Act of Sale passed. And she said, it’s done all the time. And, I said, well
92 Rec. Doc. 39-5 at 41–43 (emphasis added).
93 Id. at 94 (emphasis added).
– now this is on a phone that she talked to me.
Q: Uh-huh.
A: Because I called Debra and Debra said Lindsey will be calling you. So, she did
call. So I told her about it. And, I said, I think – I said, I’ll have to talk to Randy
about it. And she said, listen, this is what we need. And she and Debra told me to
write a letter because its done all the time and sign his name or else they could not
complete the Act of Sale. But she said, don’t worry about. And I said, well, I don’t
feel comfortable with this. And she said, don’t worry about it. It’s done all the time.
And a credit check will be done at the Act of Sale, so you don’t even have to worry
about it…94
Debra Macaluso’s relevant deposition testimony reads as follows:
Q: How did you first hear about [the RV loan]?
A: I was contacted by Judy Browne saying that she received a letter in the mail
regarding the foreclosure, and I reached out to our legal department to see if it was
actually true.
…
Q: Before the loan closed, did you ever have any conversations with either – lets
call them Randy or Lawrence or Judy Browne about the RV loan?
A: Yes.
Q: And what, to the best of your recollection, were those conversations and with
whom?
A: So, basically, I asked – whenever there’s an inquiry on a credit report, we have
to find out if there is a debt associated with that or not, so I asked at the time. There’s
an inquiry on here. I don’t remember who the dealership was but was there an RV
loan taken out or any type of loan taken out, and I was told no, they were shopping
for one, but they decided not to get it.
Debra Macaluso further testified:
Q: Do you remember what she said specifically about the Camper World RV issue?
A: Yes.
Q: What was that?
A: He was shopping for an RV, but he didn’t get one.
Q: Did you tell Ms. Browne to put that in a letter?
A: I told her to write the letter, yes. I didn’t tell her what to put in it.95
There is no evidence that Summit’s representatives coached or directed Plaintiffs or Judith
94 Id. at 95–96.
95 Rec. Doc. 39-2 at 41–42 (emphasis added).
Browne to provide false information. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Summit had
knowledge of the RV loan prior to the closing of the home loan. In their opposition memorandum,
Plaintiffs admit Judith Browne did not explicitly testify that Macaluso or Hernaez were aware of
the RV loan, rather Plaintiffs argue it can be implied that Summit had knowledge. Plaintiffs’
conclusory assertions, unsupported by admissible evidence, are insufficient to create a genuine
dispute of material fact. The deposition transcripts do not show coaching or direction to
misrepresent, as such, there is no competent evidence to create a genuine factual dispute. At best,
Plaintiffs’ opposition raises an inference, but because it is an unreasonable inference unsupported
by the record, its insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Nevertheless, Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs breached the loan contract because
Randolph did not live in the underlying property as his primary residence, despite this obligation
being included in the loan documents. In Paragraph 6 of the Mortgage, Plaintiffs agreed and
acknowledged that they would live in the Property as their principal residence:
Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower’s principal
residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall
continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least one
year after the date of occupancy, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances
exist which are beyond Borrowers control.96
Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument in opposition. As such, it must be deemed admitted.
For these reasons, the Court finds that there are no material facts in dispute. Plaintiffs
defaulted on the loan pursuant to Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the mortgage agreement. Therefore, the
instant case seeking a judgment declaring that the loan is not in default must be dismissed.
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor.
96 Rec. Doc. 39-1 at 10.
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment?’ is
GRANTED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 2nd day of September, 2025.
NANNETTE _pobwwe BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7 Rec. Doc. 39.
18