January 3, 2013
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff,
ROMIE DAVID BISHOP, and SHIRLEY BISHOP, Defendants.
Calvin L. Scott, Jr., Judge
On this 3rd day of January, 2013, it appears to the Court that:
1. In this in rem mortgage foreclosure proceeding, Defendants have filed a Motion in Limine requesting that the Court exclude from trial any evidence or assertion that does not support the claims as they are set forth in the Complaint. Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to exclude any evidence or statements by counsel or witnesses regarding any assertion that any other party provided the mortgage,  may accelerate the sum claimed to be secured by a mortgage,  or is owed monies by the Defendants.
2. Plaintiff argues that the requests in the motion are "overly broad" and, as such, the requests should be denied. Plaintiff contends that the evidence sought to be excluded is relevant to factual determination and that Defendants have failed to state what evidence they are trying to exclude with sufficient particularity.
3. Defendants replied to Plaintiff's response by stating, among other things, that Defendants do not oppose any evidence so long as such evidence is relevant to the Complaint and that the Complaint "did not sufficiently offer factual basis that the Plaintiff had purchased the claimed security instrument from a third party, and thereby failed to meet the requirement of a pleading…"
4. The central issue in an in rem mortgage foreclosure action is whether the mortgagee breached a condition of the mortgage by nonpayment of the mortgage money or nonperformance of a condition contained in the mortgage. In this action, Defendants have argued that a third-party paid the mortgage as a defense to the mortgage foreclosure. Defendants have also argued that Plaintiff is not a real party in interest to the mortgage. 5. The Court finds that the Defendants have failed to refute the relevance of the evidence and statements relating which they seek to exclude. The issues of whether Defendants owe Plaintiff and whether Defendants owe money to any other party are directly relevant to the disposition of the action.Therefore, the Defendants' Motion in Limine is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.