Date: 10-04-2012
Case Style: Marlene Elrod v. First Pryority Bank
Case Number: CJ-2009-6109
Judge: Mary Fitzgerald
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Anthony P. Sutton
Defendant's Attorney: Brad W. Heckenkemper
Description: Marlene Elrod, individually and as Managing Member of Maplewood Investments, LLC, sued First Pryority Bank on negligence, fraud in the inducement and breach of contract theories relating to mortgage loan procession and administration, alleging:
The Plaintiff, Diana Marlene Elrod, dismisses her causes of action with prejudice to her right of re-filing any further action against the Defendant, First Pryority Bank, all issues of law and fact having been fully compromised and settled.
The Plaintiffs, Diana Marlene Elrod, individually and as managing memberof Maplewood Investments, LLC (collectively “Elrod”), for their causes of action agains the Defendant, First Pryority Bank (“Bank”), allege and state:
I. PARTIES. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.1 At all times relevant hereto, Elrod was and is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. On or about November 18, 2010, Lirod transferred title to the real property described herein to Maplewood Investments, LLC, of which Elrod is the managing member.
1.2 At all times relevant hereto, Bank was and is a domestic bank doing business in Tulsa County and Mayes County, Oklahoma.
1.3 The acts of which Efrod complains herein against Bank occurred in both Tulsa County and Mayes County and, therefore, venue and jurisdiction in Tulsa County is proper. Moreover, Bank has places of business in both Tulsa County and Mayes County and Elrod’s claims herein arose, either in whole or in part, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
II. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE
(Mortpne Loan Processina/Administration)
For her First Cause of Action against Bank, Elrod alleges and states:
2.1 On or about March 13, 2006, Elrod obtained a mortgage real estate loan from Bank. According to the terms of the loan transaction, Bank loaned Elrod funds which were secured by a real estate mortgage on Elrod’s residential property located in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2.2 As part of the mortgage loan processing and administration, Bank had a duty only to require Birod to satis’ conditions precedent which were reasonably necessary for the creation of the loan and to secure Bank’s mortgage securing payment of the loan.
2.3 Bank breached its duty in that it made loan requirements which were unreasonable and unnecessary with respect to the creation and closing of the loan and of creating and establishing the mortgage securing payment of the loan.
2.4 Due to Bank’s breach of its duties and obligations with respect to its loan processing and administration of the second real estate mortgage loan, Elrod has been damaged in a sum in excess of $10,000 plus consequential damages in excess of $10,000 for which Elrod seeks a money judgment against Bank.
2.5 Bank’s acts and omissions were malicious giving rise to punitive damages for which Elrod seeks a money judgment against Bank in excess of $10,000.
2.6 Elrod is entitled to her aft oncy’ s fees and costs in prosecuting this cause of action for which she seeks an additional money judgment.
2.7 Elrod is entitled to her costs and pre- and post-judgment interest on any sums found due and owing to her from Bank for which Elrod seeks an additional money judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff, Diana Marlene Elrod, prays that she be awarded a money judgment against Bank in a sum in excess of $10,000, her attorney’s fees, costs and interest, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
III. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT
For her Second Cause of Action against Bank, Elrod alleges and states:
3.1 Elrod realleges and restates Paragraphs 1.1 through 2.7 above as if same were set forth herein verbatim.
3.2 Pursuant to the contractual agreement and relationship between Elrod and Bank, Bank had a duty only to require Elrod to execute and deliver such loan documents which were reasonably necessary for creating the loan and to protect Bank’s mortgage which secured payment of the loan.
3.3 Bank breached its duty in that it made loan requirements which were uireasonable and unnecessary with respect to the creation and closing of the loan and of creating and establishing the mortgage securing payment of the loan.
3.4 Due to Bank’s breach of its duties and obligations, both express, implied and inferred, with respect to its loan processing and administration of the real estate mortgage loan, Elrod has been damaged in a sum in excess of $10,000, plus consequential damages in excess of $10,000 for which Elrod seeks a money judgment against Bank.
3.5 Banic’s acts and omissions were malicious giving rise to punitive damages for which Elrod seeks a money judgment against Bank in excess of $10,000.
3.6 Elrod is entitled to her attorney’s fees and costs in prosecuting this cause of action for which she seeks an additional money judgment against Bank.
3.7 Elrod is entitled to her costs and pre- and post-judgment interest on any sums found due and owing to her from Bank for which Elrod seeks an additional money judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffs, Diana Marlene Elrod, individually and as managing member of Maplewood Investments, LLC, pray that Elrod be awarded a money judgment against Bank for actual and consequential damages in a sum in excess of $10,000, punitive damages in excess of $10,000, her attorney’s fees, costs and interest, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
