Jatera Corp. v. US Bank National Association, 030619 FED5, 18-10248
|Opinion Judge:||RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, CIRCUIT JUDGE:|
|Party Name:||JATERA CORPORATION; ESTHER RANDLE MOORE, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-HE3; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 06, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
At issue in this diversity action is whether Texas law provides a detrimental-reliance exception to a lender's right to unilaterally withdraw a notice of acceleration; and, if so, whether Jatera Corporation and Esther Randle Moore detrimentally relied on the notice of acceleration by U.S. Bank National Association (Bank) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS). Appellants challenge the district court's, on cross-motions for summary judgment, denying Appellants' motion and granting Appellees'. AFFIRMED.
In 2005, Moore and her husband purchased a house located in Dallas, Texas (the property), by signing a Texas home equity fixed/adjustable rate note in the amount of $99, 200, secured by a Texas home equity security instrument. Through a series of transfers and assignments, the Bank became the owner and holder of the note and security interest.
After her husband died in April 2008, all interest in the property was transferred to Moore, who soon defaulted on her mortgage payments. In March 2010, the Bank's then loan servicer notified Moore of its intent to accelerate the note (acceleration notice), demanding full payment of the debt ($116, 575.80).
After the Bank filed suit in state court in 2011 to obtain a court order permitting foreclosure on the property, Moore signed an agreed final judgment in November 2011, consenting to foreclosure. In January 2012, Moore vacated the property and signed a one-year lease for an apartment.
The Bank's new loan servicer, SPS, sent a new notice of default to Moore in November 2012, informing her: she could cure her default by making a payment of $38, 343.99; but, if payment was not received by December 2012, the note would be re-accelerated.
In March 2015, Moore conveyed her interest in the property to Scojo Solutions, LLC, through a special warranty deed. One month later, Scojo transferred its interest in the property to Jatera Corporation.
After SPS re-initiated the foreclosure proceedings originally pursued by the Bank, Jatera filed this action against the Bank and SPS in state court, seeking a judgment declaring the lien on the property void because Appellees failed to initiate foreclosure proceedings within the four-year statute of limitations. In response, Appellees removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
In district court, Jatera amended its complaint, asserting that Moore's detrimental reliance on the acceleration notice prevented Appellees from abandoning the acceleration in November 2012. Moore was joined as a plaintiff. She filed a complaint seeking a judgment declaring the lien on the property void, and/or quieting...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP