Fifth Circuit

We don’t care if the Loan was Extinguished by Prior Payments, Foreclose on the Homeowner anyway

Shaver alleged that a servicer “was unjustly enriched by failing to apply credit default swap payments and other payments to their loan balance.”

Among other theories, the borrowers in Shaver v. Barrett Daffin LLP  No. 14-20107 (Nov. 5, 2014, unpublished).

Shaver alleged that a servicer “was unjustly enriched by failing to apply credit default swap payments and other payments to their loan balance.”

This argument — apparently addressed for the first time by the Fifth Circuit in this opinion — was rejected by the Court, which noted similar results in other jurisdictions.

STEWART, CARL E.

JONES, EDITH H.

HIGGINSON, STEPHEN A.

Fifth Court Opinion (p.10)

The Shavers also claim that NCM was unjustly enriched by failing to apply credit default swap payments and other payments to their loan balance.

“A party may recover under the unjust enrichment theory when one person has obtained a benefit from another by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage.” Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992).

The Shavers fail to plausibly allege how the receipt of credit default payments or third-party insurance payments without an accompanying decrease to the loan balance is unjust enrichment.

The Shavers cite no cases holding that a lender must decrease the borrower’s loan balance by the amount received from third-party transactions, likely because no court has accepted this novel theory.

In fact, many courts have rejected similar claims based on a lender’s receipt of funds from credit default swaps and other comparable sources. See Rosas v. Carnegie Mortgage, LLC, No. CV 11-7692 CAS CWX, 2012 WL 1865480, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2012) (“[P]laintiffs’ theory that lenders that received funds through loan securitizations or credit default swaps must waive their borrowers’ obligations fails as a matter of law.”); Taylor v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2:10-CV-505 TS, 2010 WL 4683881, at *3 (D. Utah Nov. 10, 2010) (“[T]he separate contract that is the result of securitization does not free Plaintiffs from the terms agreed upon in the Deeds of Trust.”); Flores v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust, Co., CIV. A. DKC 10-0217, 2010 WL 2719849, at *5 (D. Md. July 7, 2010) (dismissing a claim alleging that defendants lacked standing to enforce a note because they had already been compensated by credit enhancement policies).

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Popular

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top