Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-06574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Judge Roman denied both motions to strike allegations relevant to negligence claims.
John Snellinger, Federal National Mortgage Association d/b/a Fannie Mae, and Bayview Loan Servicing; the negligence claims and the challenged allegations remain in the case.
What happened
In Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association, John Snellinger sued Fannie Mae and Bayview Loan Servicing after he was injured while entering a property during his police duties. He alleged that the defendants failed to maintain the property and were negligent.
The court had previously dismissed Snellinger’s claims under New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law but allowed his negligence claims to continue. In his amended complaint, Snellinger still referred to statutory duties requiring Fannie Mae and Bayview to maintain or inspect the property. The defendants asked the court to remove those references.
Judge Roman denied both motions to strike. The court held that the statutory references could be relevant to whether the defendants controlled or were responsible for the property and therefore whether they owed Snellinger a duty in negligence. Fannie Mae was directed to answer the amended complaint by June 13, 2022.
The detailed version
- Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association · No. 7:19-cv-06574
- Nelson Roman
- May 27, 2022
Background
John Snellinger brought this action against Federal National Mortgage Association, doing business as Fannie Mae, and Bayview Loan Servicing. He alleged that the defendants failed to maintain a property at 24 Drago Lane in Wallkill, New York, and were negligent. Snellinger alleged that, while acting as a Town of Wallkill police officer on August 3, 2017, he entered the property to determine whether anyone was inside before it was boarded up. He saw a broken window, tried to enter through it, fell, and suffered significant injuries.
The court’s earlier order dismissed Snellinger’s claims under sections 1307 and 1308 of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law because, among other reasons, those provisions did not give him a private right of action. The court allowed his common-law negligence allegations to continue and permitted him to file a First Amended Complaint.
Motions to Strike
Fannie Mae moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike a reference to section 1307 from paragraph 15 of the amended complaint. Bayview separately moved to strike a reference to section 1308 from paragraph 18. Rule 12(f) permits a court to remove from a pleading an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
The defendants argued that the statutory references contradicted the earlier order and had no bearing on whether they breached a duty to Snellinger. Snellinger responded that the references were relevant to whether the defendants maintained possession or control of the property.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court explained that a negligence claim requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages. It also explained that a mortgage holder or titleholder that neither maintains nor controls property generally cannot be held responsible for negligently failing to maintain it. Because control or responsibility for the property was relevant to whether the defendants owed Snellinger a duty, the court held that the statutory references could bear on the negligence claims.
The court therefore denied Fannie Mae’s motion to strike and denied Bayview’s motion to strike. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of Snellinger’s negligence claims. Fannie Mae was directed to answer the First Amended Complaint by June 13, 2022, and the clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.