The 2008 financial crisis produced a bumper crop of Fifth Circut opinions about basic issues involving home loans, because diversity jurisdiction drove much of that litigation into the federal courts. While (thankfully) there are far fewer cases about those issues now, the Fifth Circuit still writes in that important area, most recently in Couch v. Bank of New York Mellon, holding:

• Clock for foreclosure. “The Couches contend that [CPRC] § 16.025(a) and (b) require mortgagees to file suit and sell within four years to preserve the lien. Texas courts disagree. Section 16.035(a) ‘does not require that the actual foreclosure occur within the four-year limitation period, but rather, requires only that the party seeking foreclosure “bring suit … not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.”‘”
• Clock for adverse possession. “[T]he adverse possession clock did not start until the Bank acquired the property at the constable’s sale. The Couches have not adversely possessed the property for a sufficient period of time under any of the potentially applicable periods.”

No. 24-10297 (Oct. 11, 2024, unpublished).

CitiMortgage complained that a borrower made his mortgage payments late under a Trial Period Plan, and was thus ineligible for a loan modification. The borrower countered that he satisfied the TPP’s grace period for payments and the Fifth Circuit agreed: “[T]he TPP establishes a grace period. It accepts payment so long as it is made ‘in the month in which it is due.’ Neither the TPP nor the parties use the term ‘grace period’ to describe this language. But that is plainly what the text contemplates. And no one disputes that Burbridge’s payments comply with the governing grace periods.” Burbridge v. Citi Mortgage, No. 21-40309 (June 16, 2022).

Casalicchio received a pre-foreclosure notice that “contained a deadline thirty days from the day the notice was printed, even though the deed of trust called for a deadline thirty days from the day the letter was mailed.” (emphasis in original). Unfortunately for Casalicchio, while the Fifth Circuit acknowledged older Texas cases that refer to an “absolute” right to “strict compliance” with a deed of trust, the Court concluded: “Since the 1980s, the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly moderated its rule that the ‘terms of a deed of trust must be strictly followed,’ clarifying recently that harmless mistakes do not void otherwise-valid foreclosure sales.” The defect in his notice was thus “but a ‘minor defect,’ insufficiently prejudicial to justify setting aside an otherwise valid foreclosure sale.” Casalacchio v. BOKF, N.A., No. 19-20246 (March 6, 2020) (applying, inter alia, Hemyari v. Stephens, 355 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2011)).

“In their Fourth Amended Complaint, the Bowmans make claims under the [Texas Debt Collection Act] without citing the appropriate sections of the statute for each claim. CitiMortgage raised this issue, and the Bowmans responded that they provided enough information for CitiMortgage to figure out which provisions it violated. As the district court reasoned, this is insufficient to provide fair notice to the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).” Bowman v. CitiMortgage, No. 18-10867 (April 12, 2019) (unpublished).

Wease established ambiguity in two aspects of a deed of trust. With respect to when a servicer could pay the borrower’s property taxes by the servicer, the key provision used the fact-specific phrase “reasonable or appropriate”; other provisions both suggested that the power was limited to back taxes, but also that it could be made “at any time.” Accordingly, “Wease was entitled to proceed to trial on his claim that Ocwen breached the contract by paying his 2010 taxes before the tax lien attached and before they became delinquent.” This analysis led to finding a triable fact issue as to whether Ocwen provided adequate notice of its actions. Wease v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 17-01574 (Jan. 4, 2019). A revised opinion eliminated some statements about tax liens and when they took effect.

In a residential foreclosure case, the borrower alleged that the bank/lender was vicariously liable for alleged RESPA violations by the servicer.  Noting that it was the first federal circuit court to address the point, the Fifth Circuit found that the lender could not be held vicariously liable. The regulation at issue imposed duties only on
servicers. (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c)(1) (“[A] servicer shall . . .”)) And when Congress wanted to expand liability, it used language showing its intent to do so. (12 U.S.C. § 2607 (saying that “no person” will pay kickbacks or unearned fees)). Christiana Trust v. Riddle, No. 17-11429 (Dec. 21, 2018).

In addition to inspiring 600Camp’s most painful pun of 2018, Ditech Financial LLC v. Naumann provides a thorough summary of the requirement – unique to default judgments, among all judgments available under the Federal Rules –  that  the relief awarded “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” As applied here, “Ditech’s demand for judicial foreclosure gave meaningful notice that, in the event of default, a writ of possession would issue in favor of the foreclosure-sale purchaser. Texas’s process of enforcing a judicial foreclosure—and specifically its mechanism for enforcing the foreclosure sale— entails issuance of the writ. Accordingly, in this case the judgment’s provision for future issuance of the writ did not expand or alter the kind or amount of relief prayed for by Ditech.” No. 17-50616 (July 19, 2018, unpublished).

The issue in Kirchner v. Deutsche Bank was whether a spouse’s signature on a deed of trust – but not the loan instrument – satisfied the Texas Constitution’s requirements about home equity loans. The Fifth Circuit found the issue was squarely addressed by a prior unpublished opinion, which it called “persuasive,” and affirmed – this time, in a published opinion. The broader principle is that unpublished opinions can work their way into published “status” when the issues they address are recurring ones. No. 17-50736 (July 11, 2018).

Before a lender may accelerate a debt (and later foreclose), Texas law requires that the lender send (1) notice of intent to accelerate, followed by (2) notice of acceleration. While “Texas courts have not squarely confronted whether a borrower is entitled to a new round of notice when a borrower re-accelerates following an earlier rescission,” the Fifth Circuit concluded “that the Texas Supreme Court would require such notice . . . Abandonment of acceleration ‘restor[es] the contract to its original condition.’ The Texas Supreme Court would likely conclude that Wilmington Trust acted ‘inconsistently’ by rescinding acceleration and then re-accelerating without notice.” Wilmington Trust v. Rob, No. 17-50115 (May 21, 2018).

A recent opinion in a real estate foreclosure dispute summarizes the current state of the law on some key principles:

• When a national bank is sued as trustee in such a case, its citizenship contrrols the analysis of diversity, not that of the investors in the trust (applying and distinguishing Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016));
• Because “Texas follows the common-law maxim that the mortage follows the note,” the trustee was “entitled to foreclosre on the property as holder of the note even if the assignment of the Deed of Trust was void.oserves as trustee of a real estate investment trust”; and
• A fraud claim failed when the aggrieved party “did not allege that he initially intended to bid on the property before learning of a potential buyer and changed his position after speaking with U.S. Bank’s representatives.”

SGK Properties LLC v. US Bank, N.A., No. 17-20130 (Feb. 9, 2018).

Castrellon sought to enforce a loan modification agreement; the defendants asserted a mutual mistake about Castrellon’s ability to sign the agreement without also obtaining the agreement of her ex-husband. Noting that she could be left empty-handed otherwise, the Fifth Circuit found a fact issue on that defense: “[T]he mere fact that the agreement may ultimately leave [her] empty-handed does not compel the conclusion that there was a mutual mistake . . . . [N]onetheless, it does support an inference that the parties mistakenly believed they could modify the loan agreement without [him] – an inference that we are required to draw at this juncture.” Castrellon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 17-40193 (Feb. 21, 2018, unpublished).

While the mortgage debtor was in default, a notice provision in the related deed of trust was an independent obligation, the breach of which could support a stand-alone action against the foreclosing party. “If performance of the terms of a deed of trust governing the parties’ rights and obligations in the event of default can always be excused by pointing to the debtor’s default under the terms off the note, the notice terms have no meaning.” That said, the Court noted that on remand, the claim would have to withstand attacks on thie measure of damage as well as causation. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-20507 (Feb. 26, 2018).

Among other holdings in a hard-fought wrongful foreclosure action, the Fifth Circuit made two observations about the FDCPA in Mahmoud v. DeMoss Owners Association. First, while language on the first page of a letter suggested that action was required in less than 30 days, the next page of that letter clearly gave the required 30-day action period in three places, and thus did not violate the FDCPA.  Second, even though “a small portion of the debt may have been time-barred,” in the context of a non-judicial foreclosure controlled by state law, that matter alone would not create an FDCPA violation. A dissent had a different view of the point, and “would hold instead that, consistent with the text and spirit of the Act, demanding full repayment of a partiaally time-barred debt under the threat of forecloosure – implying that the entirety of the debt is legally enforceable – violates the FDCPA.” No. 15-20618 (July 28, 2017).

In a thorough review of several basic issues that arise in litigation about residential foreclosures, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the citizenship of a mortgage securitization trust is determined by the citizenship of the trustee, or the citizenship of all the trust’s interest holders. While the traditional rule is that the citizenship of the trustee controls, Navarro Savings Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980), the borrower argued that a more recent case about the citizenship of a REIT should control, Americold Relay Trust v. Conagra Foods, 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016). Because the defendant bank was sued in its capacity as trusteee, and because the terms of the Pooling and Service Agreement assigned “real and substantial” control to the bank, the Court elected to follow Navarro. Bynane v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 16-20598 (August 4, 2017) (Navarro was sucessfully argued in the Supreme Court by my former law partner James Ellis, an excellent lawyer and as shown above, a star quarterback at Texas Tech in the early 1960s).

By summary judgment, Advanced Recovery Systems lost a case brought under section 8 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that it failed to disclose on credit reports that the plaintiff disputed two allegedly unpaid debts. Procedurally, while the summary judgment did not follow the traditional Rule 56 schedule, the Fifth Circuit found no harm because ARS had admitted to the district court that there were no remaining issues of fact. Substantively, the Court rejected a challenge to Article III standing, finding that the plaintiff’s injury was sufficiently “tangible” — “[T]he violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact .. . . Among those circumstances are cases where a statutory violation creates the ‘risk of real harm’ . . . Unlike an incorrect zip code, the ‘bare procedural violation’ in [Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016)], an inaccurate credit rating creates a substantial risk of harm.” Sayles v. Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc., No. 16-60640 (July 6, 2017).

The common situtation of a loan modification raised two general issues – (1) given the princple that “all parts of a contract should be read so that none will be rendered meaningless,” the outcome is not clear if a modification has a signature line, when companied by “contratual language [that] indicated that once the [borrowers] performed, their loan would be modified automatically and [the servicer] would be bound by the Agreement” – and (2) given that the Statute of Frauds in Texas for loan agreements generally involves oral agreements or agreements that clearly require signature by both parties, it is not clear if “the written offer itself, along with the attached Modification Agreement” would satisfy that status. Owens v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, No. 16-20557 (June 5, 2017).

In Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Berry, a dispute about a home equity loan, the Fifth Circuit confirmed that “we now must follow the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in [Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016)] that no statute of limitations applies to a borrower’s allegations of violations of section 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution in a quiet title action, rather than our prior holding in [Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013)].” In so doing, the Court reminded that “the issues-not-briefed-are-waived rule is a prudential construct that requires the exercise of discretion,” and addressed the applicability of Wood notwithstanding the appellant not discussing the case in its opening brief, noting that the underlying issues had been briefed, and that the Court had received supplemental briefing on the pure question of law presented about the application of Wood. No. 16-10604 (March 29, 2017).

Recipients of Section 8 housing assistance sued mortgage originators, complaining that the originators either denied or discouraged the recipients’ credit applications by not considering their Section 8 income, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims by recipients who had only inquired about, rather than actually starting, the application process, as well as claims based on Wells Fargo’s policies about the purchase of mortgages in the secondary market. It reversed as to one group of applicants, however, finding under Iqbal and the substantive law that they “plausibly alleged that AmeriPro refused to consider their Section 8 income in assessing their creditworthiness as mortgage applicants, and that they received mortgages on less favorable terms and in lesser amounts than they would have had their Section 8 income been considered.” Alexander v. AmeriPro, No. 15-20710 (Feb. 16, 2017).

CitiMortgage sought to foreclose on Maldonado’s home; in the subsequent litigatoin, it offered summary judgment evidence that he owed a balance of $533,960.80. In response, Maldonado “disputed the amounts that CitiMortgage claimed in attorneys’ fees, inspection fees, escrow, taxes, and late charges,” but did “not provide any evidence of what the correct amounts should be.”  Maldonado v. CitiMortgage, No. 16-20541 (Jan. 23, 2017, unpublished).

Foster sued about a foreclosure; the state court granted a TRO (so no foreclosure occurred); and the mortgage servicer defendants removed and obtained summary judgment. Foster challenged the denial of her motion to remand, arguing that she did not improperly join the substitute trustee appointed to conduct the foreclosure sale. The Fifth Circuit affirmed: “[B]reach of a trustee’s duty does not constitute an independent tort; rather, it yields a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. A claim of wrongful foreclosure cannot succeed, however, when no foreclosure has occurred.” Foster v. Deutsche Bank, No. 16-11045 (Feb. 8, 2017).

Last year, the Fifth Circuit certified these two questions to the Texas Supreme Court:

1. Does a lender or holder violate Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(vii) of the Texas Constitution, becoming liable for forfeiture of principal and interest, when the loan agreement incorporates the protections of Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(vii), but the lender or holder fails to return the cancelled note and release of lien upon full payment of the note and within 60 days after the borrower informs the lender or holder of the failure to comply?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is “no,” then, in the absence of actual damages, does a lender or holder become liable for forfeiture of principal and interest under a breach of contract theory when the loan agreement incorporates the protections of Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(vii), but the lender or holder, although filing a release of lien in the deed records, fails to return the cancelled note and release of lien upon full payment of the note and within 60 days after the borrower informs the lender or holder of the failure to comply?

The Texas Supreme Court answered both questions “no” in Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 15-0437 (Tex. May 20, 2016). Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s contract claim in Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 14-51156 (Oct. 3, 2016, unpublished).

“We now make explicit what we have held in unpublished, nonprecedential opinions.  HUD regulations govern the relationship between the reverse-mortgage lender and HUD as insurer of the loan.  HUD regulations do not give the borrower a private cause of action unless the regulations are expressly incorporated into the lender-borrower agreement.” Johnson v. World Alliance Financial, No. 15-50881 (July 18, 2016).

Among other points raised in a challenge to a foreclosure on a Texas home equity loan, the trial court observed: “the curious backdating of the [assignment] confirms the suspicion that this document was generated to obscure the chain of title inquiry rather than to illuminate it.” In reversing the judgment below, on this point the Fifth Circuit held: “At least two Texas Courts of Appeals have considered this very question, and both have held that an assignment may have a retroactive ‘effective date.'”  Deutsche Bank v. Burke, No. 15-20201 (June 9, 2016, unpublished).

Garza moved into her mother’s house after her mother died intestate in 2013.  In August 2013, Garza filed an application to determine heirship as to the house.  In October, Wells Fargo foreclosed, having refused to speak to Garza about the note since she was not the borrower.  In December, Garza was awarded a 50% share of the property.  In January 2014, Wells Fargo began eviction proceedings.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that Wells Fargo had not violated section 51.002(d) of the Texas Property Code (passing on the question whether it provides a private right of action), as the statute only requires notice to “a debtor in default.” Garza v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 15-10426 (Jan. 28, 2016, unpublished).

In Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Bank, the Fifth Circuit published a straightforward Rule 12 affirmance in a mortgage servicing case, likely to make abundantly clear what law governs several recurring issues in such cases.  Those principles include: (1) a plaintiff’s failure to allege her own performance bars a breach of contract claim, (2) a negligence claim about servicing should arise from a duty independent of the contract, (3) a wrongful foreclosure claim requires allegation of the allegedly grossly inadequate price, and (4) typical mortgage servicing activity is “incidental to the loan” and does not create DTPA standing.  No. 15-40243 (Feb. 26, 2016).  (See also the recent case of Meachum v. Bank of New York, No. 15-10237 (Jan. 11, 2016, unpublished).

In the fourth opinion in recent months about whether a mortgage servicer waived acceleration of the loan by inconsistent conduct, the Fifth Circuit again rejected such an argument in Martin v. Fannie Mae: “Wells Fargo accepted payments only after [the borrower’s] default in 2009, not after the bank had accelerated the note. . . . These differences matter because the [Deed of Trust’s] non-waiver provisions allow Wells Fargo to accept payments less than the entire obligation or to defer acceleration and foreclosure (and any other remedy) after default without waiving its rights.”  In reaching this holding on these facts, the Court noted situations in which post-acceleration conduct could potentially amount to a waiver.  No. 15-41104 (Feb. 22, 2016). See also Alvarado v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 15-51017 (June 20, 2016, unpublished).

In a wrongful foreclosure case, the borrower alleged that PNC Bank had not proved its ownership of the note.  Then, “an attorney representing [defendants] showed an attorney employed by [Barrett-Bowie’s law firm] the original blue ink note signed by Barrett-Bowie. The Firm’s attorney acknowledged that the note was indorsed from the original lender to First Franklin Financial Corporation and from First Franklin Financial Corporation to PNC Bank. The Firm’s attorney retained a copy of the original note and reported what she had seen to her colleagues at the Firm.”  Nevertheless, the firm filed two more pleadings repeating the standing allegations, and in response to a summary judgment motion — while not directly disputing the servicer’s proof of standing in response — asked that the court “deny [the servicer’s ]motion ‘in its entirety’ and argued that genuine issues of material fact existed ‘on elements in each of Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action.'”  An award of Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff’s firm was affirmed in Barrett-Bowie v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 14-11249 (Nov. 25, 2015, unpublished).

A mortgage servicer can violate the Texas Finance Code by asserting legal rights it does not actually have.  See McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank, 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).  But seemingly inconsistent communications by a servicer do not violate the Code:

“[Plaintiff] does not contend that any one letter is a misrepresentation in
and of itself but rather that the amounts differ, so the letters are misleading
as a whole. But the letters explicitly state that they are describing two different
types of obligations: notices of the entire outstanding obligation and notices
of the amount due to bring the loan current. Each category is internally consistent
and consistent with the other. [Plaintiff’s] amount to bring the loan current
continued to grow over time because she was not making adequate payments
and still occupied the property. The total outstanding obligation grew for the
same reason. The letters were not misrepresentations but, instead, were
accurate descriptions of two different types of obligations and were specifically
identified as such.”

Rucker v. Bank of America, 15-10373 (Nov. 20, 2015).

U.S. Bank sent notices of acceleration, and began foreclosure proceedings, several times before suing for judicial foreclosure.  The borrowers contended that suit was time-barred. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that the bank’s second notice “unequivocally manifested an intent to abandon the previous acceleration and provided the [borrowers] with an opportunity to avoid foreclosure if they cured their arrearage.  As a result, the statute of limitations period under [Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code] § 16.035(a) ceased to run at that point and a new limitations period did not begin to accrue until [they] defaulted again and U.S. Bank exercised its right to accelerate thereafter.”  Boren v. U.S. Nat’l Bank Ass’n. No. 14-20718 (Oct. 26, 2015).

The case of Ferguson v. Bank of New York reminds of two basic principles in the area of mortgage servicing litigation: (1) MERS can be named as a beneficiary under a deed of trust; and (2) a borrower does not ordinarily have standing to enforce the terms of a pooling & servicing agreement.   The Court sidestepped an issue of whether the Texas fraudulent lien statute could apply if a lender simply transferred a lien as opposed to creating it.  No. 14-20585 (Oct. 1, 2015).

Building on momentum after winning a challenge to the MERS business model, MERS succeeded in arguing that an earlier suit against Bank of America created a res judicata bar to a later suit against MERS because MERS and the bank were in privity.  Warren v. MERS, No. 14-11102 (July 2, 2015, unpublished).

Three counties sued MERS (“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.”) for violations of various statutes related to the recording of deeds of trust (the Texas equivalent of a mortgage).  In a nutshell, MERS is listed as the “beneficiary” on a deed of trust while the note is executed in favor of the lender.  “If the lender later transfers the promissory note (or its interest in the note) to another MERS member, no assignment of the deed of trust is created or recorded because . . . MERS remains the nominee for the lender’s successors and assigns.”  The counties argued that this arrangement avoided significant filing fees.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for MERS, finding (1) procedurally, that the Texas Legislature did not create a private right of action to enforce the relevant statute and (2) substantively, that the statute was better characterized as a “procedural directive” to clerks rather than an absolute rule.  Other claims failed for similar reasons.  Harris County v. MERSCORP Inc., No. 14-10392 (June 26, 2015).

Disputes between borrowers and mortgage servicers are common; jury trials in those disputes are rare.  But rare events do occur, and in McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank, 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015), a servicer lost a judgment for roughly $400,000 after a jury trial.

The underlying relationship was defined by a settlement agreement in which “Wells Fargo has agreed to accept payments from the McCaigs and to give the McCaigs the opportunity to avoid foreclosure of the Property; as long as the McCaigs make the required payments consistent with the Forbearance Agreement and the Loan Agreement.” Unfortunately, Wells’s “‘computer software was not equipped to handle’ the settlement and forbearance agreements meaning ‘manual tracking’ was required.”  This led to a number of accounting mistakes, which in turn led to unjustified threats to foreclose and other miscommunications.

In reviewing and largely affirming the judgment, the Fifth Circuit reached several conclusions of broad general interest:

• The “bona fide error” defense under the Texas Debt Collection Act allows a servicer to argue that it made a good-faith mistake;  Wells did not plead that defense here, meaning that its arguments about a lack of intent were not pertinent to the elements of the Act sued upon by plaintiffs;
• The economic loss rule did not bar the TDCA claims, even though the alleged misconduct breached the parties’ contract: “[I]f a particular duty is defined both in a contract and in a statutory provision, and a party violates the duty enumerated in both sources, the economic loss rule does not apply”;
• A Casteel – type charge issue is not preserved if the objecting party submits the allegedly erroneous question with the comment “If I had to draft this over again, that’s the way I’d draft it”;
• The plaintiffs’ lay testimony was sufficient to support awards for mental anguish; and
• “[A] print-out from [plaintiffs’] attorney’s case management system showing individual tasks performed by the attorney and the date on which those tasks were performed” was sufficient evidence to support the award of attorneys fees.

A dissent took issue with the economic loss holding, and would find all of the plaintiffs’ claims barred; “[t]he majority’s reading of these [TDCA] provisions specifically equates mere contract breach with statutory violations[.]”

Garofolo paid off her home equity note, but did not then receive the cancelled promissory note and a release of lien from the servicer, as required by the Texas Constitution, and the terms of the note.  She sued for forfeiture of principal and all interest paid under the Constitution; the servicer admitted not having sent the papers, but contended that having the provision in the note was sufficient to comply with the Constitutional requirement.  The Fifth Circuit certified this issue to the Texas Supreme Court: “Garofolo’s construction appears to give rise to a drastic remedy, but Ocwen’s construction appears to render the requirement a virtual nullity except in the (hopefully rare) circumstance where a lender unscrupulously attempts to enforce a paid note resulting in recoverable damages.” Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 14-51156 (June 9, 2015).

Estes sued JP Morgan Chase, alleging violations of the Texas Constitution with respect to a home equity loan.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal on a basic ground: “Estes’s complaint fails to allege any connection between himself and JPMC except that Estes ‘notified [JPMC] that the original promissory note had not been returned,’ and that ‘[m]ore than 60 days have passed since plaintiff notified [JMPC] of its failure to cancel and return the promissory note.’  Considering the allegations in Estes’s complaint, and taking those allegations as true, Estes has not alleged that JPMC possessed the Note at the relevant time. He also has not alleged that he made payments to JPMC, nor has he alleged any other facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that the Note was made payable to “bearer” or to JPMC, as the definition of “holder” set forth in Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 1.201 requires.”  Estes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14-51103 (May 20, 2015, unpublished).

Defendants claimed that a foreclosure sale produced an unfair windfall for Fannie Mae on a substantial commercial property.  They alleged that Fannie Mae had a practice of making unfairly low bids on Gulf Coast properties.  The Fifth Circuit observed: “As the district court held, evidence regarding Fannie Mae’s other foreclosure practices throughout the Gulf Coast region would not impact whether the subject property was sold for the amount at which it would have changed hands between a willing buyer and seller having knowledge of the relevant facts. At most, such evidence might have suggested that Fannie Mae’s conduct throughout the region affected the fair market value of the subject property. So long as the property was sold for fair market value, however, evidence of the various market forces influencing that value is not relevant to this case.” Fannie Mae v. Lynch, No. 14-60864 (June 2, 2015, unpublished).

In Barzelis v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., No. 14-10782 (Apr. 22, 2015), the Fifth Circuit addressed the preemption of state-law mortgage claims under “HOLA,” the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, a statute governing federal savings associations.  The Court held:

1.  Notice and cure.  “It may be the case, for example, that a state law regulating interest-rate adjustments to protect borrowers is preempted by HOLA.  But that does not prevent a bank and a borrower from voluntarily agreeing to substantially the same protections in their contract . . . .”

2.  Misrepresentation.  “[W]here a negligent-misrepresentation claim is predicated not on affirmative misstatements but instead on the adequacy of disclosures or credit notices, it has a specific regulatory effect on lending operations and is preempted.”

3.  Debt collection.  Consumer protection laws “‘that establish the basic norms that undergird commercial transactions’ do not have more than an incidental effect on lending and thus escape preemption.”

Continuing an earlier post about how to sign documents, the issue of effective consent again appeared in Berry v. Fannie Mae, No. 14-10474 (April 17, 2015, unpublished).  A mortgage servicer sent a trial payment plan to a borrower, which said: “This Plan will not take effect unless and until both the Lender and I sign it and Lender provides me with a copy of this Plan with the Lender’s signature.”  Rejecting an argument that the servicer’s letter acknowledging the borrower’s signature waived this language, the Court enforced it and affirmed dismissal of the borrower’s claims.  A similar analysis led to a similar result in Williams v. Bank of America, No. 14-20520 (May 7, 2015, unpublished).

While affirming the dismissal of the borrowers’ other claims related to a foreclosure, the Fifth Circuit reversed as to a claim for wrongful foreclosure, reasoning: “Under Texas law, a claim for wrongful foreclosure generally requires: (1) ‘a defect in the foreclosure sale proceedings;’ (2) ‘a grossly inadequate selling price;’ and (3) ‘a causal connection between the defect and grossly inadequate selling price.’ In their Third Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that JPMC failed to comply with the notice procedures required for a foreclosure sale,and that, as a result, they lost the opportunity to obtain cash or to find a buyer for the Property before JPMC foreclosed. Plaintiffs also specifically allege that the Property sold for a grossly inadequate sales price.”  Guajardo v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 13-51025 (Jan. 12, 2015, unpublished) (citations omitted).  Notably, while the pleading describes the type of notice required and avers that it did not occur, it does not provide detail about the sales price and why it was not adequate.

Two rulings for mortgage servicers offer points of general interest to start the New Year:

1.  This allegation does not satisfy Twombly, with respect to the intent requirement of the Texas fraudulent lien statute: “the transactions by the Defendants jointly and severally were designed to defraud the Plaintiff out of her property.” The Fifth Circuit found that “this allegation is, at most, a legal conclusion that [Defendant Law Firm] acted with the requisite intent; it lacks any ‘factual content’ that would ‘allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the intent element was met.”  Trang v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 14-5028 (Jan. 7, 2015, unpublished).

2.  Footnote 1 of the Trang opinion reviews the apparent split in authority on whether a lien assignment falls within the scope of that statute.

3.  A borrower seeking refinancing of a mortgage loan is not a consumer under the Texas DTPA.  “[T]he refinancing that Perkins sought from BOA is “directly analogous to the [auto] refinancing services sought by the claimant in Riverside [National Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. 1980)].”  Perkins v. Bank of America, No. 14-20284 (revised March 4, 2015).

Defendants removed, averring: “The real property at issue has a current fair market value of $87,500.”  The district court denied remand.  Plaintiffs appealed, and the Fifth Circuit entertained her argument because it went to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Taking judicial notice of county appraisal records that valued the property at $62,392, the Court remanded for the gathering of more evidence about the amount in controversy. Statin v. Deutsche Bank, No. 14-20200 (Dec. 19, 2014, unpublished).  The Court noted the recent Supreme Court case of Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Williams, No. 13-719 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014), which confirmed that while “defendants to not need to attach evidence supporting the alleged amount in controversy to the notice of removal,” “once the notice of removal’s asserted amount is ‘challenged,’ the parties ‘must submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.'”

Can a note be endorsed with a photocopied signature?  Yes. Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 13-20639 (Dec. 3, 2014, unpublished) (citing Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 1.201(b)(37)) (“Signed” includes using any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.”)

Can a “deed of trust . . . upon a homestead exempted from execution,” which “shall not be valid or binding unless signed by the spouse of the owner,” be signed in separate but identical documents?  Yes.  Avakian v. Citibank, N.A., No. 14-60175 (Dec. 9, 2014) (citing Duncan v. Moore, 7 So. 221, 221-22 (Miss. 1890)) (“There is much force in the argument of defendant’s counsel that the statute does not require a joint deed of husband and wife for the conveyance of the husband’s homestead . . . that the substantial thing is the written evidence of such consent; and that this may be as certainly shown by a separate instrument as by signing the deed of the husband.”)

The borrowers’ complaint in a wrongful foreclosure case sought: “‘an order canceling the Mortgage’ on property that is worth more than $200,000 while also stipulating that they will not recover more than $75,000.”  Accordingly: “Given our established rule that the amount in controversy in cases like this is determined by the value of the property, it is irrelevant whether the stipulation is binding. A party cannot sue over a mountain but stipulate that it is a molehill.”  Solis v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 14-40489 (Nov. 17, 2014, unpublished).

Among other theories, the borrowers in Shaver v. Barrett Daffin LLP alleged that a servicer “was unjustly enriched by failing to apply credit default swap payments and other payments to their loan balance.”  No. 14-20107 (Nov. 5, 2014, unpublished).  This argument — apparently addressed for the first time by the Fifth Circuit in this opinion — was rejected by the Court, which noted similar results in other jurisdictions.

A mortgage servicer sued two individuals, alleging a conspiracy to defraud; the defendants argued that the servicer lacked standing because the notes in question were not properly conveyed.  The case settled during trial, and as part of the settlement “the parties stipulated to several facts, including the fact that the Trusts were the owners and holders of the Loans at issue.”  An agreed judgment followed.  BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Groves, No. 13-20764 (Nov. 3, 2014, unpublished).

The defendants then moved to vacate under FRCP 60(b), arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing.  The district court denied the motion and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  It first noted that “the court will generally enforce valid appeal waivers, [but] a party cannot waive Article III standing by agreement . . .”  Further noting that “parties may stipulate to facts but not legal conclusions,” the Court held: “That is exactly what happened here.  [Defendants] conceded facts that establish [plainitiff’s] status; thus, the district court appropriately reached the resulting legal conclusion that [plaintiff] has standing.”

Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court answered certified questions from the Fifth Circuit about the treatment of home equity loans under the Texas Constitution; that opinion summarizes: “To avoid foreclosure, homeowners and lenders often try to restructure underwater home mortgage loans that are in default by capitalizing past-due amounts as principal, lowering the interest rate, and reducing monthly payments, thereby easing the burden on the homeowners. But home equity loans are subject to the requirements of Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has asked whether those requirements apply to such loan restructuring. We answer that as long as the original note is not satisfied and replaced, and there is no additional extension of credit, as we define it, the restructuring is valid and need not meet the constitutional requirements for a new loan.”  Sims v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, No. 13-0638 (Tex. 2014).  Following that Court’s recent denial of rehearing, the Fifth Circuit has now formally accepted the answer and ruled accordingly.

A borrower lost a summary judgment in a mortgage dispute in Langlois v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-10914 (Sept. 8, 2014, unpublished).  In addition to a basic summary of problems that such cases can have, the opinion illustrates one in particular.  The stronger an alleged oral modification becomes, the weaker a corresponding fraud claim becomes, because “When oral promises are directly contradicted by express, unambiguous terms of a written agreement, the law says that reliance on those oral promises is not justified.”  (quoting Taft v. Sherman, 301 S.W.3d 452, 458 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2009, no pet.)  The same phenomenon strengthens a Statute of Frauds defense as well.

In loan-level litigation between borrowers and mortgage servicers, the servicer usually has the significant advantage of better record-keeping.  In Tielke v. Bank of America, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for a servicer.  No. 13-20425 (Sept. 4, 2014, unpublished).  The Court observed, as to the servicer’s loan history statement, that “we are unable to decipher this document with any certainty.”  The main problem was whether the borrowers had truly fallen into default or the servicer was inaccurately carrying forward matters that should have been erased by their bankruptcy; compounded by confusion over the servicer’s handling of an escrow account for insurance.  In a conclusion that should encourage careful record-keeping by all parties, the Court found: “There are simply too many unanswered questions”

Chavez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-11325 (Aug. 13, 2014, unpublished) reminds of 2 black-letter principles in mortgage servicing litigation:

1.  A claim under section 392.304(a)(19) of the Texas Finance Code requires proof of a misleading affirmative statement.  “Chavez does not allege that Wells Fargo ever affirmatively represented that he qualified for the modification program.  Here, even assuming that Wells Fargo told Chavez ‘not to worry’ about whether he qualified, this is not an affirmative statement.”

2.  As to negligent misrepresentation, “Chavez argues that Wells Fargo made negligent misrepresentations that it would not foreclose on Chavez during the loan modification process and that it he should not make payments during the process.  However, ‘representations regarding future loan modifications and foreclosure constitute promises of future action rather than representations of existing fact.”  .

1.  No “split-the-note” claims — we mean it.  Echoing recent opinions about efforts to revisit Priester v. JP Morgan Chase, 708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013), in Paulette v. Lozoya the Fifth Circuit declined to distinguish, rehear, or certify the holding of Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2013).  No. 14-50111 (Aug. 6, 2014, unpublished).

.2.  Plead fraudulent lien claims correctly — we mean it.  In Reece v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the Fifth Circuit reiterated, and this time published, a holding from a previous unpublished opinion — that a claim based on the Texas fraudulent lien statute requires “inten[t] to cause the plaintiff physical injury, financial injury, or mental anguish.” No.14-10176 (Aug. 5, 2014).  [Cf. rejection of such a claim for other reasons in Kramer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 13-50920 (June 25, 2014, unpublished)].

3.  Priester is here to stay.  And, at the district court level, sanctions were recently imposed for failure to acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Priester.  Some years ago, this blog’s author co-wrote an article, with Professor Wendy Couture of the University of Idaho Law School, about how courts warning litigants about continuing to press arguments perceived as weak — a topic definitely raised by these recent cases. Loud Rules, 34 Pepperdine L. Rev. 715 (2007).