Haase v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
| Docket Number | 01-20-00854-CV |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Parties | RICHARD A. HAASE AND RICHARD A. HAASE, Appellants.[1] v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial CourtCase No. 07-DCV-161177
Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
This appeal involves litigation over a mortgage loan on residential property and a judicial foreclosure of the property.Appellants filed suit asserting several causes of action claiming they were improperly required to pay higher monthly mortgage payments due to the procurement of replacement homeowners' insurance for the property.Appellee counterclaimed for judicial foreclosure of the property.After years of litigation, including removal and remand of the proceedings to and from federal court, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees on Appellants' claims and Appellee's counterclaim for judicial foreclosure.The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Appellee.At Appellee's request and over the objection of Appellants, the trial court later entered two Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments.
In eight issues, Appellants argue that (1)the trial court abused its discretion in granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for judicial foreclosure; (2)a court"cannot impair a contractual obligation"; (3)the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellee's counterclaim; (4) there are issues of due process; (5) the Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments the trial court issued were improper; (6) federal rulings on Texas law are moot; (7)Appellants have title to the property at issue; and (8) reinstatement of their claims against Appellee is required.
We affirm.
Background[2]
The history of this case began in June 2006, when Richard A Haase and Audrey L. Haase(the "Haases") executed a Texas Home Equity Note ("Note") for real property in Missouri City, Texas ("Property").The Note was payable to New Century Mortgage Corporation("New Century") in the sum of $173,600, payable in monthly installments beginning August 1, 2006.The Note provided that if the Haases defaulted on the payment of any installment and failed to cure the default, the Note holder could accelerate the Note, causing the remaining unpaid balance and interest to become due immediately.The Haases executed a Texas Home Equity Security Instrument ("Security Instrument") as security for the Note.The Security Instrument gave the lender the ability to require immediate payment in full invoke the power of sale and use any other remedies permitted by law if the Haases were to default and fail to cure the default.
In 2008, an assignment of the Note and Security Interest (collectively, the "Loan") to AppelleeDeutsche Bank National Trust Company was filed in the real property records of Fort Bend County.According to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, the "[a]ctual transfer of the Loan to Deutsche occurred in 2006 upon creation of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE6, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE6 with Deutsche serving as trustee."
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.("Countrywide") began servicing the Loan in December 2006, and in 2008, Bank of America, N.A. acquired Countrywide becoming Countrywide's successor mortgage servicer.Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. assumed servicing of the Loan in September 2012.
In April 2007, the Haases' homeowners' insurance policy lapsed.Countrywide purchased an insurance policy for the Property and added the cost of the insurance to the Haases' monthly mortgage payment, as allowed under the Loan.The Haases, who contend they were unaware of the insurance lapse until September 2007,[3] procured homeowners' insurance effective September 2007.Countrywide canceled the insurance policy it had obtained for the Property, but charged the Haases for the cost of the insurance it procured during the lapse in coverage.In December 2007, Countrywide sent a letter to the Haases advising them they were in "serious default" because they owed $3,327.52 for the November mortgage and other fees.The letter stated that failure to cure the default by January 2, 2008 would result in an acceleration of the Loan.The Haases failed to cure the default and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company elected to accelerate the entire debt secured by the Security Instrument.[4], [5]
The Haases sued Countrywide on December 31, 2007, and later Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corporation(collectively, "BOA"), for increasing their monthly mortgage payment in connection with the procurement of replacement homeowners' insurance.The Haases asserted claims against Countrywide and BOA for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act and FederalFair Debt Collection Practices Act.Countrywide filed counterclaims against the Haases for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, alleging the Haases had not paid their mortgage payment since October 2007.Countrywide also sought a judicial foreclosure of the lien on the Property along with an order of sale directing the Property to be sold to satisfy the lien.
The litigation continued in state court and eventually, on August 15, 2011, the Haases filed their seventh amended petition, adding "Deutsche Bank, AG" as a defendant and adding claims for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, and violations of the Texas Constitution and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE6, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE6 filed an answer[6] and counterclaims against the Haases for declaratory judgment and judicial foreclosure seeking an order from the trial court authorizing judicial foreclose of the Property and an order of sale directing the Property to be sold in satisfaction of its lien.
In April 2012, BOA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment on the claims asserted by the Haases,[7] and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company also filed a summary judgment motion on its foreclosure counterclaim.[8] In May 2012, the Haases filed their Eighth Amended Petition adding Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. as a named defendant, among others, and asserting an additional claim for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.Three days later, on May 18, 2012, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
On December 5, 2012, the federal court granted motions to dismiss filed by three of the state courtdefendants[9] and granted partial summary judgment motions filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and BOA.The remainder of the claims were remanded to the state trial court.The Haases unsuccessfully appealed the federal order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Haases' petition for writ of certiorari.
After the Haases added new federal claims in their Ninth Amended Petition, filed in state court on October 16, 2015, the defendants again removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.[10] In February 2016, the federal court issued a final judgment dismissing with prejudice all of the Haases' claims asserted in their Ninth Amended Petition and remanding Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's judicial foreclosure claim to state court.The Haases again appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed its First Amended Counterclaim for judicial foreclosure in state court on October 31, 2018.[11] And on November 15, 2018, Deutsche Bank National Company as Trustee on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE6, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE6 filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment on the First Amended Counterclaim for Judicial Foreclosure ("Summary Judgment Motion").This is the first pleading in the record where the Deutsche party is identified as "Deutsche Bank National Company" as opposed to "Deutsche Bank National Trust Company."As discussed below, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company contends the identification of "Deutsche Bank National Company" in its Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and subsequent pleadings resulted from the inadvertent omission of the word "Trust" from its complete name.
On December 10, 2018, AppellantsRichard A. Haase and RICHARD A HAASE, an apparent corporation, (collectively, "Haase") filed a Tenth Amended Petition in state court against numerous defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, violations of the Texas and United States Constitutions, unfair debt collection practices, fraud, and violations of 42 U.S.C. §1985.[12] Among the named defendants were "Deutsche National Bank and Trust Company,"[13] other previously dismissed defendants, the United States of America, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and various federal judges.On December 21, 2018, "Deutsche Bank National Company" filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the Tenth Amended Petition and a supplement to its previous Summary Judgment Motion, seeking summary judgment on Haase's Tenth Amended Petition, arguing that all claims asserted in the petition had been previously dismissed with prejudice.That same day, Haase filed an Amended Partial and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment against "Deutsche National Bank and Trust...
To continue reading
Request your trial