Appellate Circuit

Fifth Cir. Judge Don Willett Says Prior Panel’s Wrongful Foreclosure Opinion and Erie Guess Went Too Far

Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett authors a published opinion, taking issue with a prior panel, including Chief Judge Owen-Hecht.

LIT COMMENTARY

In re Jeanbaptiste Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuit “that (5th Circuit) Panel Went too Far”

The Magistrate Judge, notable for authoring the opinion that relied on an uncertain interpretation of Erie doctrine, not only favored Wells Fargo, enabling the bank to evade potentially millions in damages, but also imposed an additional burden on Baptiste. This included awarding $26,000 in attorney fees to counsel, including Locke Lord. Notably, this Magistrate Judge, Irma Carrillo Ramirez, has recently ascended to the Fifth Circuit, becoming the first Latina appointed as a Circuit Judge in Louisiana.

Check back for updates and subscribe to our free newsletter, delivered direct to your inbox.

Sheet Pile v. Plymouth Tube (Pub.)

APR 3, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 4, 2024

Before Willett, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge:

…the Texas Supreme Court has not held that the discovery rule is categorically inapplicable to breach-of-contract injuries…

21 In an unpublished, per curiam opinion, a previous panel of this court cited Via Net for the unequivocal rule that Texas’s “discovery rule does not apply to breach of contract . . . claims.”

Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 14-10671, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21468, at *5 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) (per curiam).

That panel went too far.

Although the Texas Supreme Court has yet to apply the discovery rule to a breach of contract, it has not foreclosed that possibility.

See Via Net, 211 S.W.3d at 314

(“We do not hold today that the discovery rule can never apply to breach of contract claims.”);

see also Beavers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 436, 439–40 (5th Cir. 2009)

(citing Via Net, 211 S.W.3d at 314).

Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A., No. 14-10671

(5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014)

Before PRADO, OWEN (AKA RICHMAN AKA MRS. HECHT), and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

Sharleen Jeanbaptiste challenges the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo Bank’s (Wells Fargo) motion to dismiss on the grounds that:

(1) her claims are not time-barred;

(2) she was not granted an opportunity to amend her complaint;

and

(3) she stated claims upon which relief could be granted.

As her claims are barred by statutes of limitation, we affirm.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

I

Jeanbaptiste bought a home during the summer of 2000 with a mortgage loan. Wells Fargo later became the mortgage servicer on the loan. After Jeanbaptiste began struggling financially, she and the bank entered into two successive loan modification agreements; she continued to make payments during this time.

In 2008, Wells Fargo informed her that it was unable modify the loan a third time and advised her to contact the bank to “discuss [her] options.”

In December of that year, she temporarily moved to Louisiana “to care for her terminally-ill mother” and, while there, continued efforts to modify her loan. Despite these efforts, in June of 2009, Wells Fargo foreclosed on Jeanbaptiste’s home.

In October, a friend who “happened to be driving by and observed someone removing items from the residence . . . immediately contacted Ms. Jeanbaptiste to inform her.”

Two years later, in December of 2011, she received notification from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve that it was reviewing whether Wells Fargo had improperly foreclosed on her home.

She filed suit in state court against Wells Fargo on December 18, 2013, alleging breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, civil theft under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA),1 and conversion.

Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Jeanbaptiste’s complaint was time-barred and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The district judge adopted these recommendations, and we now affirm on grounds that the claims are barred under the relevant statutes of limitation.

1 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODES ANN. § 134.003, .005 (West 2013).

II

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).2 We accept “all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”3

A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply appropriate state law, including state statutes of limitation, to resolve a dispute.4

To determine state law, a federal court “look[s] to the final decisions of the state’s highest court.”5

Where no such precedent is available, a federal court must employ state methodology to make an “Erie guess” to “determine, in its best judgment, how the highest court of the state would resolve the issue if presented with the same case.”6

It is undisputed that Texas law applies in this case.

III

In Texas, under the “injury rule,” unless an exception applies, “a cause of action generally accrues when a wrongful act causes a legal injury regardless of when the plaintiff discovers the injury or if all resulting damages have not yet occurred.”7

A four-year statute of limitations applies to breach of contract8

2 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).

3 Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

4 Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 111 (1945); Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-79 (1938).

5 Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., 739 F.3d 848, 856 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Canal Indem. Co., 352 F.3d 254, 260 (5th Cir. 2003)).

6 Id.

7 Holland v. Thompson, 338 S.W.3d 586, 593 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied)

(citing Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Tex. 1998)).

8 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.004 (West 2013).

and wrongful foreclosure9 claims.

A two-year limitations period applies to conversion10 and TTLA11 claims.

Thus, as Jeanbaptiste’s injuries occurred at the latest in June of 2009, when Wells Fargo foreclosed, and she did not bring her claim until December of 2013, all of her claims are time-barred.

Jeanbaptiste nevertheless contends that the “discovery rule,” a narrow exception to the injury rule, tolled the statute of limitations such that her suit can move forward. We disagree.

The discovery rule exception applies only if:

the nature of the plaintiff’s injury is both inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable.

An injury is inherently undiscoverable if it is, by its nature, unlikely to be discovered within the prescribed limitations period despite due diligence.

“Inherently discoverable” does not mean that a particular plaintiff did not discover his or her particular injury within the applicable limitations period. Instead, we determine whether an injury is inherently undiscoverable on a categorical basis because such an approach brings predictability and consistency to the jurisprudence.12

The discovery rule does not apply to breach of contract13 or conversion14 claims.

While the Supreme Court of Texas has not yet addressed the application of the discovery rule to wrongful foreclosure and TTLA claims, Texas courts of appeal

9 Gonzales v. Lockwood Lumber Co., 668 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (citing Int’l Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Union of N. Am. v. Smith, 198 S.W.2d 729, 735 (Tex. 1946)).

10 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 16.003(a).

11 Id. § 134.003, .005; see Howard v. Sony Music BMG Entm’t, 293 F. App’x 350, 352 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

12 Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Tex. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 675 (5th Cir. 2013).

13 Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 315 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).

14 Rogers v. Ricane Enters., Inc., 930 S.W.2d 157, 167 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996, writ denied), cited with approval in HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Tex. 1998).

have uniformly refused to apply the discovery rule to them.15  Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Jeanbaptiste’s suit with prejudice because her claims are time-barred.

*    *    *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

15 E.g., Trunkhill Capital, Inc. v. Jansma, 905 S.W.2d 464, 468 (Tex. App.–—Waco 1995, writ denied)

(“The creditor’s cause of action for any deficiency exists on the date of foreclosure.”);

Nabelek v. Bradford, No. 14-01-00240-CV, 2002 WL 1438662, at *3 & n.3, *5 (Tex. App.–—Houston Aug. 22, 2002)

(“While it is perhaps probable that a reasonably diligent person whose property had been seized would not know of his injury as of [the date of seizure], we cannot say that he would continue to remain unaware of that failure for a period of two years thereafter.”);

see also Howard v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, No. H-06-3133-CV, 2007 WL 2537865, at *3-4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2007), aff’d, 293 F. App’x 350 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(3:14-cv-00264)

District Court, N.D. Texas

$26k in attorney fees awarded to Locke Lord by former MJ Ramirez, now a Circuit Judge.

U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14-cv-00264-K-BH

Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Assigned to: Judge Ed Kinkeade
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez
Demand: $200,000

Case in other court:  14-10671
14th Judicial District, Dallas County, TX, DC-13-14827

Cause: 28:1441 Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 01/23/2014
Date Terminated: 05/22/2014
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste represented by Alex L Davis , III
A-Davis Firm PC
2626 Cole Avenue Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75204
214-450-6447
Fax: 214-481-1271
Email: adavis@a-dfirm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank NA represented by Jeffrey B Mead
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Ave
Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75210
214-740-8678
Fax: 214-756-8678
Email: jmead@lockelord.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJason L Sanders
Sanders Collins PLLC
6301 Gaston Ave
Suite 1121
Dallas, TX 75214
214-894-9981
Fax: 214-242-3004
Email: jsanders@sanderscollins.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert T Mowrey
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
214-740-8000
Fax: 214-740-8800
Email: rmowrey@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
01/23/2014 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, case number DC-13-14827 filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Filing fee $400; receipt number 0539-5808430) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas should seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B – B-2, # 3 Exhibit(s) B-3 – B-5, # 4 Exhibit(s) C) (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
01/23/2014 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
01/23/2014 3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. identifying Corporate Parent/Other Affiliate Wells Fargo & Company for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
01/23/2014 4 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. File to Judge Ramirez. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Ramirez (see Special Order 3). Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
01/30/2014 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief In Support Thereof filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Proposed Order) (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
01/31/2014 6 First MOTION to Remand filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
01/31/2014 7 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re 6 First MOTION to Remand (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
02/03/2014 8 ORDER re: 5 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof. Respondent may file a response by 2/20/2014. Movant may file a reply by 3/6/2014. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 2/3/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
02/04/2014 9 ORDER re: 6 Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. Respondent may file a response by 2/21/2014. Movant may file a reply by 3/7/2014. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 2/4/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
02/17/2014 10 RESPONSE filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief In Support Thereof (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B) (Davis, Alex) Modified text on 2/18/2014 (jrr). (Entered: 02/17/2014)
02/21/2014 11 RESPONSE filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 6 First MOTION to Remand (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
03/05/2014 12 Sur-reply filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 6 First MOTION to Remand (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B) (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
03/06/2014 13 REPLY filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief In Support Thereof (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
04/30/2014 14 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: 5 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof; and 6 Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. Plaintiff’s motion to remand should be DENIED, Defendants motion to dismiss should be GRANTED, and all of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 4/30/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
05/09/2014 15 OBJECTION filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 14 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 5 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 6 Motion to Remand filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s), # 6 Exhibit(s)) (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
05/22/2014 16 Order Accepting 14 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, filed 1/31/2014 (doc. 6 ), is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof, filed 1/30/2014 (doc. 5 ), is GRANTED. By separate judgment, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant will be DISMISSED with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 5/22/2014) (axm) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
05/22/2014 17 JUDGMENT: Plaintiff’ Motion for Remand (doc. 6 ), is DENIED, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof(doc. 5 ), is GRANTED, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice. The taxable costs of court, as calculated by the clerk of court, are assessed against Plaintiff. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 5/22/2014) (axm) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
06/05/2014 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
06/05/2014 19 Appendix in Support filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A – Note, # 2 Exhibit(s) B – Deed of Trust, # 3 Exhibit(s) C – Declaration of Robert T. Mowrey, # 4 Exhibit(s) C-1 – Invoices (Filed Under Seal)) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
06/05/2014 20 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
06/05/2014 22 BILL OF COSTS by Wells Fargo Bank NA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A – Filing Fee Receipt) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
06/06/2014 23 ORDER re: 18 Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and Brief in Support; 20 Motion for Entry of Protective Order Under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d); and 21 Motion for Leave to File Invoices Under Seal. Respondent may file a response by 6/26/2014. Movant may file a reply by 7/10/2014. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 6/6/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
06/11/2014 24 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit as to 16 Order Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations, 17 Judgment, by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. Filing fee $505, receipt number 0539-6095168. T.O. form to appellant electronically at Transcript Order Form or US Mail as appropriate. Copy of NOA to be sent US Mail to parties not electronically noticed. (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
06/19/2014 25 Costs Taxed in amount of $400.00 against Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. (ctf) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
06/25/2014 26 REPLY filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)) (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
06/25/2014 27 REPLY filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 20 MOTION for Protective Order (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
07/10/2014 28 REPLY filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
07/10/2014 29 REPLY filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 20 MOTION for Protective Order (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
11/04/2014 30 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: 18 Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Brief in Support; 20 Motion for Entry of Protective Order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d); and 21 Motion for Leave to File Invoices Under Seal. Defendant’s motion for a protective order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) and motion for leave to file its billing invoices under seal are DENIED. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs should be GRANTED, and it should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $26,008.50, and costs in the amount of $162.28. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 11/4/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
12/01/2014 31 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 30 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 20 Motion for Protective Order filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 21 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 18 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Brief in Support, filed 6/5/2014 (doc. 18) is GRANTED. The defendant is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $26,008.50, and costs in the amount of $162.28. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/1/2014) (tla) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/05/2014 32 Opinion of USCA in accordance with USCA judgment re 24 Notice of Appeal, filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. (svc) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
12/05/2014 33 JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 24 Notice of Appeal, filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. Judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Issued as Mandate: 12/2/14. (svc) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/04/2024 06:05:55

ARTICLES ON LIT WHEN SEARCHING FOR “ERIE GUESS”: NOTE THE PATTERN

Priority Mail: USPS Consistently Loses Time Sensitive Federal Court Filings for Weeks, Not Days

The excessive delays are when legal mailings are sent from Kingwood to the federal court mailing address in Houston, Texas from Joanna Burke.

Operation Elder Abuse: PHH Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank Judge Shopping Continues

Forum Shopping aka Judge Shopping is a disease in Texas courts says Congress, demanding this form of case assignment be outlawed.

The Lane Law Gettin’ Back Into Foreclosure Defense, Despite No Apology from Judge Hittner

It’s Bobby and Shelley back for U.S. Bank in this foreclosure case, Mark Hopkins is AWOL and Matt Graham is off doing personal injury stuff.

The Deleted Opinion: After the Before From the Dishonorable Fifth Circuit

Non prisoner Lamell obtains a partial reversal in his favor from a 3-panel which capitulated from their earlier opinion. LIT investigates why.

There’s No Riddle, Just a Premeditated Guess Which Contradicts

This court makes a confident Erie guess that the Texas Supreme Court would have concluded that explicit substitution was not required.

Acceleration Laws in Texas Foreclosure Cases a Train Wreck Says Austin Lawyer

Respected Foreclosure Defense Lawyer J. Patrick Sutton lashes out at Hon. Moore and the States Fifth Circuit Appellate Court in Dallas.

Young’s ‘Pretty Good Deal’ is Another Baked Fifth Circuit Foreclosure Opinion by an Infamous 3-Panel

Compare, for example, the foreclosure case of Rob authored by Judge Stephen Higginson in 2018 which reversed and rendered for homeowners.

Sizzlin’ Bacon Tweets Is Not Where Judge Don Willett’s Heart Is, He Claimed. How’s He Doin’ Nearly 3 Years Into His Life Tenure?

If you’re confirmed why would a transgender person with a case before you ever think they’d have a fair and impartial hearing? asked Sen Leahy

Judge David Hittner Sanctions Foreclosure Defense Lawyers, Only for the Erie Guess He Relied Upon to be Error

The Lane Law Firm and several of its attorneys were sanctioned by Judge David Hittner for the Priester case, an erie guess, which was later reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.

When You Find Out Your 3-Panel at The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and it Confirms The Obvious. LIT Focuses on Panel Judge Don R. Willett

A review of partisan and politically corrupted Judge Don R. Willett of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and data confirming his bias towards ruling in favor of banks and non-banks. This contravenes the judicial oath of following the rule of law and protecting homesteads and homeowners in the State of Texas as required in law.

Words Can Easily Create a False Impression of the Real Facts. Here’s a Perfect Example by the Fifth Circuit

Patrick was lying to the Judge—to maintain control over Sturkin and perpetuate her fraudulent scheme—but the Judge ordered Sturkin to be imprisoned.

The Nomination of Fifth Circuit Judge and Former Prosecutor – Judge Gregg Jeffrey Costa

Judge Gregg Costa: A judge should keep an open mind about the issues in a case; and maintain a sense of humility when exercising the significant power our system entrusts to federal judges.

Tina Alexander’s Bank Returns to S.D. Federal Court in Houston But She’s Armed with Supreme Court Constitutional Lawyers from LA. We Assume to Attack the Priester Ruling in Her Prior Case(s) at the Fifth Circuit

Tina Alexander returns to SDTX and her case is assigned to Judge Ellison, who recently had a spat with Judge Jerry Smith of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This time she’s lawyered up and ready to attack Priester which was used against her in prior opinions by the 5th.

Judge Gregg Costa, Mortgage Fraud Prosecutor Post Financial Crisis, US District Judge for SDTX and Ethically Did Not Recuse from Priester II in 2019

Gregg Costa: For a lawyer and Judge that was probably the closest to the mortgage fraud by all the lenders post Great Recession, due to his position as fraud prosecutor, it’s clear and obvious the rulings for the Banks and Financial Institutions are based on a cover up of the mortgage scams and frauds perpetrated against homeowners which he audited. Conclusion: Ethically immoral.

After a Revisit from the Priesters, Who Reminded the Fifth Circuit their Erie Guess Was Proven to Be Lender Bias by the Supreme Court of Texas, they Say, to Hell With Ya, it Was a Guess and You’re No Saint, You’re Merely a Poor Sinner

Back in 2013, we affirmed the dismissal of the Priesters’ case, holding that a four-year statute of limitations barred their attempt to avoid a home-equity lien under Texas Constitution. Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2013 But three years later, the Supreme Court of Texas interpreted Texas law differently. Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, Tex. 2016.

The 3-Panel in the Fifth Circuit Combine for the Circuit and Announce A Sword, A Shield and A[nother] Retroactive Erie Guess

Section 1024.41 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the procedures that mortgage servicers must follow when processing loss mitigation applications. Does the Fifth Circuit interpret the law correctly in this Erie Guess for the first time’ before issuing warnings?

We’ll Protect Attorney Immunity no Matter What Negligence Prevailed says Fifth Circuit

Schiff Hardin’s conduct falls squarely within the scope of the firm’s representation of its client. This court is not bound to accept as true [plaintiff’s legal conclusion…even wrongful conduct.

Certification to the Supreme Court of Texas, Heck No, Says Fifth

In the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision,  Sexton v Deutsche Bank  they reiterate their belligerent stance in this and other cases that Erie guess is as good as a homeowner gets when requesting a question be certified to the Supreme Court.

Fifth Cir. Judge Don Willett Says Prior Panel’s Wrongful Foreclosure Opinion and Erie Guess Went Too Far
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top