Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chase Home Finance, LLC, Successor By Merger To Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation v. Michelle Shea

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 30, 2011

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHELLE SHEA, MARK R. KUKIELSKI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNKNOWN HEIRS AND LEGATEES OF MICHELLE SHEA, IF ANY, UNKNOWN OWNERS AND NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

REAGAN, District Judge:

On December 21, 2010, Chase Home Finance, LLC, filed its Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, against Defendants Michelle Shea, Mark R. Kukielski, the United States, Unknown Heirs and Legatees of Michelle Shea, if any, Unknown Owners, and Non-Record Claimants. Chase named the United States as Defendant because the United States has a tax lien on the mortgaged real estate. On January 21, 2011, the United States removed the action to this federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444, which grants the United States the right to remove a foreclosure action in which it is named as a defendant.

Chase moves to voluntarily dismiss its claim against the United States and for remand to state court (Doc. 21). Chase states that it has agreed to pay the tax lien of the United States. Chase submits that no party will be prejudiced by dismissing the United States and that remand is appropriate because the sole federal claim will have dropped out.

The United States responds that its lien remains valid and of record until actually satisfied. It contends that the motion is premature because the lien has not been extinguished by payment.

The Court agrees with the United States that Chase's expressed intent to pay does not equal payment, nor can the United States be expected to rely on Chase's assurance. Until payment is made, the United States remains a proper party herein, and dismissal of the United States is inappropriate. If Chase wishes to dismiss the United States from this action, then the action it must take is clear.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Chase's motion to voluntarily dismiss its claim against the United States and remand to state court (Doc. 21).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Reagan

20110630

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.