Anton v. US Bank Trust Ntl Assn
20-11159
| 5th Cir. | Oct 6, 2021Background
- In 2005 Anton executed an adjustable‑rate note secured by a deed of trust; the note was ultimately indorsed to U.S. Bank and serviced by Rushmore.
- Anton defaulted in May 2018; he and Rushmore exchanged emails about a July repayment plan under which Anton would cure missed payments but he made only the first payment and Rushmore referred the loan for foreclosure on July 20, 2018.
- Later in 2018 Rushmore and Anton executed a written December repayment plan for November and December payments; Anton’s attempted December payments were reversed for insufficient funds and he again defaulted.
- Rushmore mailed notices of default/acceleration and a foreclosure‑sale notice was posted; Anton sued U.S. Bank (removed to federal court) alleging breach of contract and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), among other claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank on all counts; Anton appealed only the breach‑of‑contract and TDCA rulings.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding (1) alleged oral/email repayment agreements failed the Texas statute of frauds, (2) Anton breached the written December plan, and (3) Anton presented no evidence of actionable TDCA misrepresentations or deceptive payment crediting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of July repayment plan | July emails and communications formed a binding repayment modification; U.S. Bank breached by referring to foreclosure before month end | Oral/email communications lack the signed written agreement required to modify a loan > $50,000 under Texas law | Not enforceable—statute of frauds unmet; summary judgment for U.S. Bank |
| Existence/terms of escrow repayment plan | Parties agreed to spread escrow over 60 months; U.S. Bank (via servicer) improperly used a 24‑month spread | No signed, complete written agreement showing material terms or a binding obligation | No enforceable contract; summary judgment for U.S. Bank |
| Breach of December written repayment plan | Written December plan required U.S. Bank to refrain from accelerating; mailing notice of default/acceleration violated the plan | Anton’s December payments were reversed for insufficient funds and he failed to cure per the agreement | Anton defaulted under the plan; no breach by U.S. Bank; summary judgment for U.S. Bank |
| TDCA claims (misrepresentations and payment crediting) | Rushmore/U.S. Bank misrepresented loan status and that a plan remained in effect; they also failed to properly credit payments | Anton knew of the debt and default; no evidence misrepresentations caused unawareness; emails show servicer attempted to correct payment posting | TDCA claims fail for lack of evidence that misrepresentations obscured debt amount/status or that payments were deceptively misapplied; summary judgment for U.S. Bank |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 884 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2018) (elements of Texas breach‑of‑contract claim)
- Bynane v. Bank of New York Mellon for CWMBS, Inc. Asset‑Backed Certificates Series 2006‑24, 866 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2017) (loan modifications exceeding statutory threshold must be in writing)
- Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2013) (agreement to modify loan must be written)
- Sterrett v. Jacobs, 118 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2003) (Texas statute of frauds requires writings complete in all material details)
- Rucker v. Bank of Am., N.A., 806 F.3d 828 (5th Cir. 2015) (elements for TDCA misrepresentation claim regarding awareness of debt/status)
- Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 726 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2013) (TDCA misrepresentation standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment standard: materiality and genuine dispute)
- Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)