Where homeowners defaulted on their mortgage, their foreclosure was not discrimination based on race or disability.
“The district court declined to strike from a Countrywide employee’s affidavit, submitted in support of summary judgment, an allegedly conclusory portion stating that neither the Crawfords’ race nor their disabilities factored into Countrywide’s actions against them. In arguing that the district court should have stricken the statement as a legal conclusion lacking adequate foundation and that the district court erroneously relied on it in granting summary judgment, the Crawfords do not address the district court’s actual rationale for denying their motion. It had determined that striking the statement was unnecessary because the Crawfords neither moved to strike nor challenged with opposing evidence another of the affiant’s statements: ‘Countrywide has taken all of the foregoing and other relevant actions against the Crawfords because of the Crawfords’ default under the loan documents and failure to make the payments as required to stay enforcement of the judgment.’ The district court found that this unchallenged assertion—in light of the fact that the Crawfords ‘offered no evidence at all of discriminatory motive in Countrywide’s decisions,’ Crawford, 2010 WL 3273715, at *4—would defeat the Crawfords’ claims of unlawful discrimination. The Crawfords leave this reasoning unaddressed on appeal, and we find that the district court did not err in denying the motion to strike.”
10-3135 Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Simon, J., Kanne, J.