Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

• Decision Date: 26 June 2013
• Docket Number: Summary Calendar.,No. 12–20559,12–20559
• Citation: 722 F.3d 249
• Parties: Ashley MARTINS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.; Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

722 F.3d 249

Ashley MARTINS, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.; Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 12–20559

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

June 26, 2013.

Alphonsus Ofor Ezeoke, Esq., Ezeoke & Ezeoke, P.C., Stafford, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Richard Dwayne Danner, Litigation Counsel, Nathan Templeton Anderson, Attorney, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (“BAC”), foreclosed on Ashley Martins's house, whereupon he challenged the foreclosure. Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the district court granted summary judgment for BAC. We affirm.

I.

In 2003, Martins refinanced a mortgage on his homestead through BSM Financial (“BSM”), executing a security instrument naming the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) as the beneficiary and nominee for BSM and its assigns. Martins paid the mortgage until December 2009, when he became delinquent and then ceased payment in June 2010.

In November 2010, MERS assigned the mortgage to BAC; the transfer was recorded on November 22. In February 2011, Martins was notified that he was in default and that the property would be foreclosed on if he failed to cure the default. Martins did not respond, and on March 14 the note's trustee provided notice to Martins and the clerk's office that the property would be sold. The house was sold on April 5, 2011, to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”); Martins did not participate in the sale.

Martins sued in state court claiming wrongful foreclosure, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentations. BAC removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment. Following Martins's failure to file a response, BAC filed a Notice of No Response, to which Martins replied with a motion for continuance, which was denied, and an untimely reply to the summary judgment motion. Having considered the untimely reply, the court granted summary judgment for BAC.

II.

“Summary judgments are reviewed de novo.” Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781, 787 (5th Cir.2012). Summary judgment may be granted where, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See alsoFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

III.

A.

Martins questions BAC's “standing” to foreclose. Martins presents an incoherent and rambling argument conflating ownership of a note with constitutional standing. Interpreting those arguments most charitably, we conclude that Martins contends that the note was not properly transferred to BAC and that the assignment was “robosigned” and therefore “forged.” Because of that, Martins's logic goes, BAC was not the holder of the note, did not own the mortgage, and could not foreclose.

This argument fails. There is no doubt that the mortgage was transferred by MERS to BAC, which presented a signed, notarized assignment document that had also been recorded by the county clerk. Martins's allegations of forgery rest on the fact (based on counsel's research) that MERS does not have a Texas office and that the assignment was “robosigned.” That alone is hardly sufficient to maintain a claim for fraud, much less to avoid summary judgment. ¹ BAC has offered sufficientevidence, through its recorded assignment, that it was the rightful holder of the mortgage, and Martins failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of fact.

B.

Martins contends that BAC cannot foreclose because it was assigned only the mortgage, and not the note itself, by MERS. Martins suggests that the assignment split the note from the deed of trust and that BAC therefore had a meaningless piece of paper rather than a debt on which it could foreclose.

Martins's argument merges, in part, two common theories on which mortgagees in wrongful-foreclosure cases in Texas and elsewhere often attempt to rely: what is commonly called the “show-me-the-note” theory and what may be called the “split-the-note” theory. There is some disagreement among the federal district courts,² and we have not spoken plainly enough on this issue in a published opinion, so we now clarify what is required regarding production of a note under Texas law.

The first theory posits that to foreclose, a party must produce the original note bearing a “wet ink signature.” ³ Numerous federal district courts have addressed this question, and each has concluded that Texas recognizes assignment of mortgages through MERS and its equivalents as valid and enforceable without production of the original, signed note. The court summarized Martins's strategy accurately in Wells v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. W–10–CA–00350, 2011 WL 2163987, at *2 (W.D.Tex. Apr. 26, 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted):

This claim-colloquially called the “show-me-the-note” theory—began circulating in courts across the country in 2009. Advocates of this theory believe that only the holder of the original wet-ink signature note has the lawful power to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. The courts, however, have roundly rejected this theory and dismissed the claims, because foreclosure statutes simply do not require possession or production of the original note. The “show me the note” theory fares no better under Texas law.[ ⁴]In Texas, existence of a note may be established by “[a] photocopy of the promissory note, attached to an affidavit in which the affiant swears that the photocopy is a true and correct copy of the original note.” Blankenship v. Robins, 899 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). We find no contrary Texas authority requiring production of the “original” note. The original, signed note need not be produced in order to foreclose.

The second theory—distinct but related—is that a transfer of a deed of trust by way of MERS “splits” the note from the deed of trust, thus rendering both null. In order to foreclose, the theory goes, a party must hold both the note and the deed of trust. The federal district courts have reached conflicting results on precisely what is required.⁵ The minority of district courts have held that the note and deed of trust must both be held by the foreclosing entity.⁶ Others have held that, under Texas law, foreclosure does not require possession of the note.⁷

The first position, declaring the “split-the-note” theory valid, is supported primarily by Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872), holding that “[t]he note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” See McCarthy, 2011 WL 6754064, at *3. That language, however, is inapposite, because the Court was addressing Colorado Territorial law and federal common law. Neither controls our interpretation of Texas law.

There are few sources in Texas law that support the “split-the-note” theory. Two courts have held that a party must hold the note in order to execute on a lien. In Shepard v. Boone, 99 S.W.3d 263, 266 (Tex.App.–Eastland 2003, no pet.), the court held that summary judgment was properly granted against the creditor where the foreclosing party had adduced no evidence that it was the owner and holder of the underlying note. The court in Leavings v. Mills, 175 S.W.3d 301, 309 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.), reached the same conclusion and held that to foreclose through a deed of trust or sue on a note, a party must prove that it owns and holds the note.⁸

The weight of Texas authority, however, suggests just the opposite. The Texas Property Code provides that a “mortgage servicer” may administer a foreclosure on behalf of a mortgagee if “the mortgage servicer and the mortgagee have entered into an agreement granting the current mortgage servicer authority to service the mortgage,” proper notice is given, and notice discloses that the mortgage servicer represents the mortgagee. Tex. Prop.Code § 51.0025. A mortgagee includes both “the grantee, beneficiary, owner, or holder of a security instrument” and “a book entry system.” Id. § 51.0001(4). The Code defines a “book entry system” as “a national book entry system for registering a beneficial interest in a security instrument that acts as a nominee for the grantee, beneficiary, owner, or holder of the security instrument and its successors and assigns.” Id. § 51.0001(1). The “mortgage servicer” is the “last person to whom a mortgagor has been instructed by the current mortgagee to send payments for the debt secured by a security instrument.” Id. § 51.0001(3). A mortgagee may be its own mortgage servicer. Id.

Because MERS is a book-entry system, it qualifies as a mortgagee. Thus, the Texas Property Code contemplates and permits MERS either (1) to grant the mortgage servicer the authority to foreclose or, if MERS is its own mortgage servicer, (2) to bring the foreclosure action itself. In either event, the mortgage servicer need not hold or own the note and yet would be authorized to administer a foreclosure.⁹

The Texas courts have repeatedly discussed the dual nature of a note and deed of trust. “It is so well settled as not to be controverted that the right to recover a personal judgment for a debt secured by a lien on land and the right to have a foreclosure of lien are severable, and a plaintiff may elect to seek a personal judgment without foreclosing the lien, and even without a waiver of the lien.” Carter v. Gray 125 Tex. 219, 81 S.W.2d 647, 648 (Comm'n App.1935, writ dism'd). Where a debt is “secured by a note,...