The parties (homeowners) brought this lawsuit, raising good question(s) but failed to present them sufficiently. The Court Panel said if it was done correctly, it could have ruled, and perhaps favorably for the homeowners if it had been pleaded correctly.
“If not for these waivers, we would have found another. Appellants did not adequately brief the validity argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8).
This case raises interesting questions. When Texas law supplies the rule of decision, what must a lender do at the summary judgment stage to establish a valid lien for purposes of the equitable-subrogation analysis?
Does a prima facie showing suffice, or must the defendant also prove that the underlying loan transaction complied with the Texas Constitution in all respects?
Appellants’ argument, such as it is, consists of two paragraphs with no citations to legal authority, one citation to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and no discussion of these vital questions.
This is insufficient. See, e.g., Ambraco, Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233, 241 n.6 (5th Cir. 2009).
To rule in Appellants’ favor would require a thorough examination of Texas law and its fit within the federal rules governing summary judgment. On this briefing, it would be judicially irresponsible to reach the merits. “