Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Haase v Countrywide Home Loans, Incorporated

Case No. 12-20806 (C.A. 5, Apr. 8, 2014)

This appeal challenges a district court’s dismissal of Richard and Audrey Haase’s (the “Haases’”) claims asserted against two financial entities and a law firm. The controversy stems from the Haases’ home equity loan and their failure to make the required payments on the loan. We find jurisdiction to review, and we AFFIRM all the orders from which the Haases appeal.

I.



This dispute has a long and sinuous history, first starting out in state court, then removal, and continuing with a flood of motions in the district court. We will first recount facts significant to this appeal. In 2006, when the Haases obtained a home equity loan from New Century Mortgage (“New Century”), New Century received a security interest in the Haases’ home in Missouri City, Texas, a suburb of Houston. The parties executed the home equity security interest (“Security Agreement”) and a corresponding agreement to repay the loan (“Note”) in the amount of $173,600. New Century, at the outset of the loan, was both the lender/mortgagee and the loan/mortgage servicer, but by November 2006, Countrywide Home Loans (“Countrywide”) gave notice to the Haases that it would be servicing their loan in the future.

Particularly relevant to the issues before us, the Haases’ Security Agreement contained a provision requiring that the Haases maintain property insurance on the home. If the Haases failed to keep the insurance on their home current, the provision gave the lender the option to obtain insurance coverage at the Haases’ expense. If the lender exercised this option, any amounts expended in acquiring the policy would become additional debt on the Haases’ loan.

In August 2007, Countrywide refused to accept the Haases’ regularly scheduled monthly loan payment. The Haases contacted Countrywide, inquiring about the refusal, and Countrywide explained that the monthly payment had increased because the Haases had failed to maintain homeowners’ insurance after the expiration of their policy in April 2007. Nevertheless, Countrywide agreed to credit the lower payment, but warned the Haases that future payments would be accepted only if in the higher amount. Further, when the Haases could provide evidence of sufficient insurance, Countrywide would credit the Haases the amount of insurance premium leftover. Shortly after receiving this information, the Haases obtained their own insurance and sent the proof of coverage to Countrywide. Countrywide credited the Haases’ account for the unused portion of the home insurance premium.
 

 

Judge(s): E. Grady Jolly
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Related Categories: Agriculture , Bankruptcy , Business Organizations , Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies , Contracts , Finance / Banking , Insurance , Torts , Wills / Trusts / Estates
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Grady Jolly
Jerry Smith
Leslie Southwick

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
trial court erred with respect to the haases’ respa claim. the respa claim daffin’s motion to dismiss. the haases allege that barrett daffin, acting as otherwise changed in any other way. the district court did not abuse its 5 we can quickly dispose of the haases’ claim that the district court violated their court, then removal, and continuing with a flood of motions in the district court. assigned to a “certificate” because a “certificate” cannot be a mortgagee. the texas, a suburb of houston. the parties executed the home equity security case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 10 date filed: 04/09/2014 loan (“note”) in the amount of $173,600. new century, at the outset of the and leave the district court with nothing else to do. id. the district court’s partial summary judgment on the respa claim in favor of conspiracy by filing the assignment of the haases’ note and security coverage at the haases’ expense. if the lender exercised this option, any ii. richardson, 738 f.3d 651, 654 (5th cir. 2013) (quoting williamson v. usda, the claims properly before us, as designated above, were correctly decided by seventh amendment right to a jury trial by granting two of the defendants’ motions to 9 particularly relevant to the issues before us, the haases’ security vii. f.3d 917, 920 (8th cir. 2006) (holding that a remand of state law claims, “after this dispute has a long and sinuous history, first starting out in state further attention to the fact that the remand was not appealed. thus, the 2009) (citing quackenbush v. allstate ins. co., 517 u.s. 706, 715 (1996)). revised april 9, 2014 expanded interpretation of the finality rule indicated by quackenbush. id. in was the new loan servicer in july 2011. the haases, however, failed to affirmed. no. 12-20806 an endorsement placed upon it by new century to mark the note’s assignment (emphasis in original). admittedly, this can be a cumbersome exercise if the 3 of four to five years after a claim would have accrued. as the magistrate judge standard as the district court did. royal v. ccc & r tres arboles, l.l.c., 736 company (“deutsche bntc”), (5) morgan stanley, and (6) barrett daffin connection to the hasses’ home equity loan was that the loan is held in a trust the haases have raised multiple issues on appeal. first, they appeal corporation; bank of america, n.a.; deutsche bank ag; over a case similar to the one before us today. 524 f.3d 627, 633 (5th cir. cir. 2007). the rule 11 motion for sanctions was based on the haases’ countrywide home loans, incorporated; bank of america remaining state claims to the state court without addressing their respective claim. the magistrate judge then issued two separate opinions recommending right to a jury trial under the seventh amendment. see sparkman v. am. bar ass’n, 281 the real estate settlement procedures act (“respa”); this amendment under rule 12(b)(6). we affirm the district court’s granting of both morgan recommended denying supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 2008). there, the district court dismissed a claim and remanded the remaining we review actions on summary judgment de novo applying the same appellees’ argument, however, is that because this judgment remanded the case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 2 date filed: 04/09/2014 i. merits, it is not a final disposition of all claims in the case, and therefore not payment had increased because the haases had failed to maintain oats markets, inc., 456 f.3d 933, 938 n. 7 (9th cir. 2006) (holding that the motion to compel discovery against the banking defendants. “discovery of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro multiple interpretations of city of waco, tex. v. u.s. fid. & guar. co., 293 u.s. 140 (1934), clear that the haases have made no factual allegations that morgan stanley stanley’s and barrett daffin’s motions to dismiss. owed would not be accepted in the future. federal claim in this case. we also affirm the district court’s orders granting compel.5 we should point out that adair was decided after our previous opinion change. accordingly, we affirm the district court’s granting bank of that remand orders are final under § 1291). thus, we are comfortable in furthermore, the district court stated that the haases had been provided with in sum, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary for the fifth circuit united states court of appeals violations occurred. snow, 332 f.3d at 359. they failed to amend their on the remanded claims and consequently “do[es] not meet the traditional following the filing of multiple motions, the magistrate judge denied 5 copies of the essential documents needed to support their claim. we agree, and haases’ respa claim, dismissing all state claims against morgan stanley and case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 6 date filed: 04/09/2014 1984)). no. 12-20806 morgan stanley abs capital i, incorporated; barrett entity, deutsche bank, as trustee for a trust holding securitized loans. thus, supreme court nevertheless concluded that remand orders are “appealable” period is bank of america, n.a.’s alleged failure to notify the haases that it security agreement were not assigned to a certificate, but assigned to an further, when the haases could provide evidence of sufficient insurance, corporation, (3) bank of america, n.a., (4) deutche bank national trust we begin by addressing the question of whether we have appellate before jolly, smith, and southwick, circuit judges. appeal purposes.” adair v. lease partners, inc., 587 f.3d 238, 240 (5th cir. in the united states court of appeals both morgan stanley’s and barrett daffin’s motions to dismiss the state law neither did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the hasses’ new century received a security interest in the haases’ home in missouri city, defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” ashcroft v. iqbal, 556 u.s. morgan stanley abs capital i inc trust 2006-he6, mortgage for the southern district of texas no. 12-20806 adair, however, we said, simply and unequivocally: “a district court’s remand to deutsche bank. as the district court concluded, the copies of the notes entered judgment accordingly. one week later, the haases filed their notice of case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 4 date filed: 04/09/2014 in may 2012, the haases amended their complaint to add a claim under nevertheless, countrywide agreed to credit the lower payment, but warned the no. 12-20806 scheduled monthly loan payment. the haases contacted countrywide, assignment’s filing, an uncontroverted fact, clearly shows that the note and in august 2007, countrywide refused to accept the haases’ regularly no. 12-20806 home equity loan, and the district court did not err in granting morgan stanley and barrett daffin. third, the haases argue that the magistrate judge credited the haases’ account for the unused portion of the home insurance favor of the defendants as to the haases’ respa claim, the sole federal claim making payments on their loan as far as this record shows. review, and we affirm all the orders from which the haases appeal. quackenbush in this manner and are in unanimous agreement. lively v. wild haases that future payments would be accepted only if in the higher amount. the loan servicer also changed several times, with the most recent change the district court and therefore its judgment is next, the haases appeal the grant of both morgan stanley’s and barrett defendants and the grant of morgan stanley’s and barrett daffin’s motions to collateral order doctrine, see cohen v. beneficial indus. loan corp., 337 u.s. that the parties provide summary judgment evidence as to the haases’ respa constitute a “final decision” appealable under 28 u.s.c. § 1291. the appellees “final decision” under § 1291); in re stone container corp., 360 f.3d 1216, finally, the haases appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for unlawful, yet the haases have presented no other evidence that the note was no. 12-20806 we also hold that the district court did not err in granting barrett with no decision on the merits are not within the scope of the final judgment basis that the discovery requests were “overbroad and/or not relevant.” granting bank of america, n.a. and deutsche bank summary judgment on the because our precedent treats “[a] district court’s remand order [a]s final for asserted against them. we review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss alleged that the additional insurance charges were improperly charged.1 obtained a home equity loan from new century mortgage (“new century”), jurisdiction because, they argue, the district court’s judgment does not home current, the provision gave the lender the option to obtain insurance iv. america, n.a.’s and deutsche banks’s motion for summary judgment in part this rule has been the uniform application of quackenbush in other circuits. it is most by jury by granting two of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. homeowners’ insurance after the expiration of their policy in april 2007. final judgments because as a practical matter, remands end federal litigation november 2006, countrywide home loans (“countrywide”) gave notice to the on the haases’ respa claim. 2 fifth circuit some error on the part of the district court.” grant, 59 f.3d at 524–25 (5th cir. 1995). this principle, however, does not give the haases a pass on notwithstanding countrywide’s explanation for the higher loan in the case. thus disposing of the respa claim, the magistrate judge countrywide would credit the haases the amount of insurance premium stanley’s motion to dismiss. amount of their basic loan payment instead of paying the new higher amount 541, 546 (1949) (as explicated in quackenbush, 517 u.s. at 714), or under an period for suits alleging a violation of § 2605.” snow v. first american title 1218–19 (10th cir. 2004) (recognizing that the majority of circuits have held 11 and their motion to compel document discovery. and finally, they contend through certificates, series 3006-he6 (“morgan stanley”). during this time plaintiffs – appellants 10 iii. legal counsel for deutsche bank, committed fraud, constructive fraud and no. 12-20806 of the district court now before us. they thus remain where they are. all of definition of finality[,]” quackenbush, 517 u.s. at 715 (emphasis added). the richard a. haase; audrey l. haase, process [with lenders] and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused order is final for appeal purposes.”4 587 f.3d at 240. adair relied upon agreement. the basis of the haases’ claim is that their note could not be 662, 678 (2009). a plaintiff’s claim must contain “enough facts to state a claim appeal from the united states district court quackenbush, which recognized that a remand order does not end the litigation f.3d 396, 400 (5th cir. 2013). we first examine the haases’ argument that the firm. the controversy stems from the haases’ home equity loan and their found appellate jurisdiction over the judgment, we pretermitted deciding the pass through certificates, series 2006-he6, been served with process. they were not proper parties in the district court, nor are they entry of a remand order had the force of a final order); porter v. williams, 436 servicers, not the trust holding the loan. based on the record before us, it is payments, the haases were unimpressed and filed a pro se suit in texas state agreement contained a provision requiring that the haases maintain property practices act (“dtpa”), and slander. the essence of the haases’ claim grew holding that we have jurisdiction to review the haases’ appeal of the judgment no. 12-20806 a motion to dismiss the complaint must allege “more than unadorned, the- f.2d 222, 225 (5th cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). to relief that is plausible on its face.” bell atl. corp. v. twombly, 550 u.s. 544, behalf of morgan stanley abs capital i, inc. trust 2006 he6, mortgage pass- no. 12-20806 dismiss. dismissal of their claims pursuant to a valid 12(b)(6) motion does not violate their no. 12-20806 amounts expended in acquiring the policy would become additional debt on the in its motion to dismiss, morgan stanley contended that its only allowed their insurance to lapse. the haases again attempted to pay the appeal. v. federal question jurisdiction.2 the haases’ complaint in the removed case 3 as the magistrate judge’s second memorandum pointed out, there was no evidence ins. co., 332 f.3d 356, 359 (5th cir. 2003). see also 12 u.s.c. § 2614. the only appealed the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the bank barrett daffin, and denying the hasses’ motion to compel and motion for vi. defendants – appellees e. grady jolly, circuit judge: no. 12-20806 sanctions. lyle w. cayce de novo. bass v. stryker corp., 669 f.3d 501, 506 (5th cir. 2012). to survive case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 8 date filed: 04/09/2014 loans including [the haases’ loan].” furthermore, morgan stanley argues that frappier turner & engel, llp (“barrett daffin”).3 altered note to the district court. a later filing of the note in court contained must acknowledge, of course, that the judgment is final in the sense that it court claiming breach of contract, violations of the texas deceptive trade april 8, 2014 out of countrywide’s refusal to accept the tendered payments. the haases jurisdiction over the haases’ appeal. we should note at the outset that the proper parties to this appeal. trade practices all relate to the haases’ relationship with the various loan the federal claims are resolved[,]” makes disposition of matters preceding 570 (2007). pointed out, the one claim that is within the three-year statute of limitations controvert evidence that a letter was indeed sent to them notifying them of the several of the haases’ non-dispositive motions, and on her own volition asked arguments are ill-defined. relate to years 2006, 2007, and 2008. their claims accrued when the alleged haases that it would be servicing their loan in the future. 8 case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 5 date filed: 04/09/2014 bank of america, n.a. and deutsche bank. second, they argue that the dismiss. but, the appellees have questioned whether this court has appellate judgment for the bank defendants on the haases’ respa claim, the sole 4 interest (“security agreement”) and a corresponding agreement to repay the complaint to add the corresponding respa claim until may 15, 2012, a period insurance on the home. if the haases failed to keep the insurance on their inquiring about the refusal, and countrywide explained that the monthly basis of appellate jurisdiction; we said jurisdiction existed under either the as we begin our review, we are mindful that “we liberally construe briefs granting or denial of a motion for sanctions under an abuse of discretion case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 7 date filed: 04/09/2014 filed abused her discretion by denying both their motion for sanctions under rule own insurance and sent the proof of coverage to countrywide. countrywide se than parties represented by counsel.” grant v. cuellar, 59 f.3d 523, 524 in regan v. starcraft marine llc, in which we exercised appellate jurisdiction countrywide’s purchased policy, however, had covered a time period district court erred by dismissing their state-law claims against morgan claims and then to remand their remaining claims to state court. on december failure to make the required payments on the loan. we find jurisdiction to this appeal challenges a district court’s dismissal of richard and audrey remand “final order[s]” because there is nothing left for the district court to clerk certainly an easily understood and simple rule to apply as opposed to going through the premium. deutsche bank trust company; certificate holders for in 2008, while this case was pending, new century assigned the note to deutsche bank national trust company (“deutsche bank”) as trustee on reflecting reimbursement for countrywide’s insurance premium. arose under various provisions of 12 u.s.c. § 2605, but regardless of which prompted the defendants to remove the case to federal court on the basis of hasses’ motion for sanctions and motion to compel discovery. we should call v. taking place in july 2011 when bank of america, n.a. took over the servicing. the haases’ claims of breach of contract, unfair collection efforts, and deceptive 1 the haases’ home has not yet been foreclosed upon, and they are not currently claims against them, and affirm the district court’s orders denying both the rulings ‘are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court’ and will not be we will attempt to address the issues where the haases have “at least argued 6 daffin’s rule 12(b)(6) motions which dismissed the haases’ state-law claims (holding that a district court’s dismissal of claims preceding its remand was a case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 3 date filed: 04/09/2014 countrywide, once again, told them that loan payments less than the amount standard. jenkins v. methodist hosp. of dallas, inc., 478 f.3d 255, 263 (5th the district court did not err in granting barrett daffin’s motion to dismiss loan, was both the lender/mortgagee and the loan/mortgage servicer, but by haases’ loan. that the district court infringed upon their seventh amendment right to a trial 7 contention that deutsche bank somehow altered their note and submitted this state law claims against them, and (2) that summary judgment be granted in 738 (5th cir. 2003) (quoting 12 u.s.c. § 2601(a)). haase’s (the “haases’”) claims asserted against two financial entities and a law 2 respa is a comprehensive federal act that “ensures . . . real estate consumers ‘are 11 record shows that the majority of the haases’ allegations of respa violations appealable under 28 u.s.c. § 1291. the appellees, however, are mistaken 815 f.2d 368, 373, 382 (5th cir. 1987)). the haases’ motion was denied on the was involved in the alleged unlawful conduct in connection with the haases’ case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 9 date filed: 04/09/2014 daffin frappier turner & engel, l.l.p.; angelo mozilo; case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 11 date filed: 04/09/2014 all other circuits presented with this question have applied sanctions and denial of their motion to compel discovery. we review a court’s 4 the brevity of this holding may be cause to pause a moment, except for the fact that provision is at issue, “[p]rivate plaintiffs . . . have a three-year limitations 28. their “arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” yohey v. collins, 985 case: 12-20806 document: 00512590335 page: 1 date filed: 04/09/2014 that (1) the district court grant two of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the cohen v. beneficial indus. loan corp., 337 u.s. 541, 546 (1949), and their respective progeny. compliance with rule 28 relating to their appellate brief. see fed. r. app. p. provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement we will first recount facts significant to this appeal. in 2006, when the haases bearing its name, “created in connection with the securitization of a pool of from april, 2007 to september, 2007, the period for which the haases’ had that angelo mozilo or deutsche bank, ag, two other defendants named in the suit, had ever leftover. shortly after receiving this information, the haases obtained their by certain abusive practices.’” o’sullivan v. countrywide home loans, inc., 319 f.3d 732, 5, 2012, the district court signed an order adopting the recommendations and differed only in this respect. the haases claimed that this alteration was f.3d 1278 (5th cir. 2001) (citing davis v. united states gov’t, 742 f.2d 171, 173 (5th cir. state law claims, exercising its discretion under § 1367(c). id. although regan included the following defendants: (1) countrywide, (2) bank of america reversed on appeal unless ‘arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.’” mccreary v. remaining claims asserted in this removed case remanded to the state court discretion in denying the haases’ motion for sanctions. resolve); ariel land owners, inc. v. dring, 351 f.3d 611, 613 (3d cir. 2004) affirm the denial of the haases’ motion for sanctions and their motion to ends the federal litigation and leaves nothing for the district court to do. the appellants have not appealed the remand provision of the judgment; they have


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise