United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 25, 2017, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
(“SLS”) and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital
Holdings, LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) filed a
“Motion to Compel Use and Occupancy Payments into the
Court Registry.” Doc. #47. Joe Clyde Tubwell responded
in opposition on October 4, 2017, Doc. #49; and Morgan
Stanley and SLS replied on October 6, 2017, Doc. #52. On
October 11, 2017, Tubwell filed a “Motion for Leave to
File a Surrebuttal.” Doc. #54. SLS and Morgan Stanley
responded on October 18, 2017, representing that they do not
oppose Tubwell's motion for leave to file a surrebuttal.
their motion to compel, SLS and Morgan Stanley seek an order
compelling Tubwell to make monthly payments into the registry
of the Court for the use and occupancy of the property
underlying this case. Doc. #47 at 1. They assert that
“[a]s of January 1, 2017, Chalmers' mortgage had
outstanding principal of $64, 705.49 and was scheduled for
monthly payments of $826.74, which included principal and
interest of $547.10 plus $279.64 escrow for force placed
insurance, ” and that “the loan was in default in
the approximate amount of $5, 345.38 and was due for the May
2016 payment.” Id. at 3-4. Further asserting
that the “delinquency has not been resolved and
continues to grow” despite having “extended a
trial loan modification offer to Tubwell, ” SLS and
Morgan Stanley request that the Court order Tubwell to make
monthly payments of $554.63 into the registry of the Court to
prevent further delinquency. Id. at 4.
response, Tubwell argues that (1) SLS and Morgan Stanley
never offered him a trial loan modification; (2) SLS and
Morgan Stanley did not support their motion with any legal
authorities; (3) he is not responsible for any insurance
payments made by SLS or Morgan Stanley; (4) there is no
agreement in place that imposes a duty on him; and (5) only
bankruptcy courts may order use and occupancy payments. Doc.
#49 at 1-5. In their reply, SLS and Morgan Stanley argue that
Tubwell admitted to signing the underlying deed of trust in
his verified amended complaint, and attach as an exhibit to
the reply a copy of a trial loan modification offer extended
to Tubwell. Doc. #52; Doc. #52-1.
Tubwell points out, SLS and Morgan Stanley do not provide any
legal authority in support of their request to compel use and
occupancy payments. They also do not explain how they arrived
at the monthly payment amount of $554.63 they
seek. Such matters could and should have been
addressed in a memorandum brief, which this Court's local
rules require to be submitted with every
motion. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4)
(requiring filing of memorandum brief “[a]t the time
the motion is served” and providing that
“[f]ailure to timely submit the required motion
documents may result in the denial of the
the lack of a memorandum brief with legal authority and
analysis, the motion to compel use and occupancy payments
 is DENIED. However, the Court will
allow SLS and Morgan Stanley twenty-one (21) days from the
date of this order to renew their motion to compel use and
occupancy payments. If filed, the renewed motion must comply
with this Court's local rules in all respects.
Tubwell's motion  for leave to file a surrebuttal is
DENIED as moot.
 Either by attachment to their motion
or reply, or by citation to documents of record, SLS and
Morgan Stanley rely on: (1) a warranty deed to Chalmers, Doc.
#47-1; (2) a deed of trust from Chalmers and Tubwell to First
Choice, Doc. #9-4 at 7-35; (3) an assignment of the deed of
trust to Morgan Stanley, Doc. # 47-2; (4) a letter to
Chalmers regarding foreclosure, Doc. #9-4 at 45; (5) a
statement from SLS to Chalmers detailing the amount due,
outstanding principal, and escrow balance, which includes
taxes and insurance costs, as of December 2016, id.
at 47; and (6) a “Settlement Offer via Loan
Modification” addressed to Tubwell after this lawsuit
was filed, Doc. #52-1. While some of these documents provide
information about the alleged amounts owed, none of them
offer an explanation as to how SLS and Morgan Stanley
calculated the $554.63 monthly payment they seek to have
Tubwell pay into the Court's registry, or how they
determined the underlying figures utilized. Indeed, it
appears the $554.63 monthly payment SLS and Morgan Stanley
seek is the same amount as that in the trial loan
modification offer. Though the trial loan modification states
the previous terms of the loan and proposes certain
modifications, it does not explain how SLS and Morgan Stanley
decided such modifications.
 In a footnote in their motion, SLS and
Morgan Stanley request to be excused from the memorandum
brief requirement. Doc. #47 at 1 n.1. For the reasons stated
above, such request is denied.
 See C.W.P. v. Brown, 56
F.Supp.3d 834, 839 (N.D. Miss. 2014) (denying motion
unaccompanied by memorandum brief).
 In light of the reasons for the denial
of the motion, the Court will not address Tubwell's
arguments in opposition to the motion. However, the Court
notes that some of ...