JO MATTHEWS HAYES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD MATTHEWS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, AS TRUSTEE, FOR GRMT II MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2000-1, DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, AND FAIRBANKS CAPITAL, INC., A FOREIGN PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jo Matthews Hayes, as personal representative of Donald Matthews's estate, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his counterclaims and third-party complaint against Chase Manhattan Bank and Fairbanks Capital in a foreclosure matter. The court reversed, holding that Matthews was not a class member in a prior federal settlement because his name appeared on the list of excluded persons, and therefore his claims were not barred by that settlement's release.
Matthews was not a class member because his name appeared on the list of excluded persons in Exhibit A to the settlement order, and the federal judge waived any deadline violation by accepting that exhibit. Therefore, his claims were not barred by res judicata, and summary judgment was improper.
[1] A party is not bound by a class action settlement if they properly requested exclusion from the class.
[2] A court's acceptance of an exhibit listing excluded individuals, even if the exclusion request was untimely, waives any deadline violation for exclusion requests.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We disagree that Matthews was a class member. His name was on the list of persons excluded from class membership; the federal judge waived any violation of the deadline for exclusion requests by accepting Exhibit "A."”
The court's core holding that Matthews was not bound by the class settlement because he was on the exclusion list and the deadline violation was waived by the federal judge's acceptance of Exhibit A.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2001, Chase Manhattan Bank filed a foreclosure action against Donald Matthews. Matthews filed a counterclaim against Chase Manhattan and a third-pa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
Appellant seeks review of the summary judgment entered against Donald Matthews. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We begin by setting forth the facts.
In 2001, Appellee Chase Manhattan Bank brought a foreclosure action against Donald Matthews; Matthews filed a counterclaim and, subsequently, a third-party complaint against Appellee Fairbanks, Chase Manhattan’s servicer on the mortgage. In the most recent iteration of the counterclaim and third-party complaint, Matthews alleged nine virtually identical counts against each party, including fraud, breach of contract, and violations of consumer protection laws, and added a tenth count against Chase Manhattan: malicious prosecution. In the meantime, Chase Manhattan had voluntarily dismissed its foreclosure action.
Also in the meantime, a settlement agreement and release was reached in a consolidated class action called Curry from the Massachusetts federal district court, wherein plaintiffs had sued Fairbanks for unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices in its servicing of residential mortgage loans. The final order approving the settlement included an attachment titled “Exhibit A,” which listed the names of those who requested exclusion. United States v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 2004 WL 3322609 (D.Mass. May 12, 2004). Matthews was number 268 on the list.
In response to the settlement, both Chase Manhattan and Fairbanks moved for summary judgment in the instant case, alleging that Matthews was a member of the Curry class because his notice was adequate and his request for exclusion was postmarked after the filing deadline imposed by the district court and that, therefore, his claims were barred by the release in the Curry settlement. The circuit court agreed, and found that Matthews’s claims were barred by operation of res judicata.
We disagree that Matthews was a class member. His name was on the list of persons excluded from class membership; the federal judge waived any violation of the deadline for exclusion requests by accepting Exhibit “A.” Fairbanks could have argued in the Curry action that Appellant should not be on the list of excluded persons, but did not; accordingly, it is es-topped from making such an argument at this late date. Chase Manhattan was not a party to the class action; however, due process concerns are not implicated because it now enjoys the benefits of the class action result.
Because Matthews was on the list of excluded persons, the circuit court should not have granted summary judgment to Chase Manhattan and Fairbanks on the ground his claims were res judicata as part of the Curry class action.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
KAHN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.