Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18083
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jesse and Edna Burciaga defaulted on a 2003 home-equity note; Deutsche Bank filed a Texas Rule 736 expedited foreclosure application in October 2013.
- The state trial court entered a Rule 736 Foreclosure Order on December 13, 2013, then closed the Rule 736 proceeding.
- The Burciagas moved in the same Rule 736 proceeding to vacate that Foreclosure Order; the court granted the motion and issued a Vacating Order on January 9, 2014.
- Deutsche Bank proceeded with a foreclosure sale on May 6, 2014, purchasing the property; Burciagas filed a separate state suit challenging the sale, which Deutsche Bank removed to federal court.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment to Deutsche Bank, quieting title; the Burciagas appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing Rooker‑Feldman barred jurisdiction, the Vacating Order was valid, and their due‑process rights were violated by the lack of a Rule 736 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burciaga) | Defendant's Argument (Deutsche Bank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker‑Feldman deprives the federal court of jurisdiction | Federal court should be barred because the Burciagas are state‑court losers asking federal court to undo state foreclosure orders | Rooker‑Feldman does not apply because Rule 736 orders have no preclusive effect and the Vacating Order was void | Rooker‑Feldman does not bar review; Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction |
| Validity/effect of the Vacating Order | The Vacating Order properly nullified the Foreclosure Order, rendering the foreclosure sale void | The Vacating Order was entered in the same Rule 736 proceeding in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.8(c) and thus was void; the Foreclosure Order remained operative | Vacating Order was void for lack of jurisdiction; Foreclosure Order remained effective |
| Whether the Foreclosure Order was void for lack of a Rule 736 hearing | Foreclosure Order is void (not merely voidable) because court failed to hold the evidentiary hearing required by Rule 736.6 | The absence of a hearing was procedural error making the order voidable, not void; state law provided an adequate remedy (a separate Rule 736.8 challenge) | Foreclosure Order was not shown to be void; procedural omission rendered it voidable and Burciagas failed to use the required Rule 736 challenge |
| Procedural due process claim | Entry of Foreclosure Order without a Rule 736 hearing violated federal and Texas due‑process rights | Texas law afforded adequate process (a separate Rule 736 challenge); Burciagas forfeited a standalone due‑process claim by failing to develop it in district court | Due‑process claim forfeited on appeal; merits fail because state procedures were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (foundational case on federal-court review of state-court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (limits federal district courts from revisiting state-court adjudications)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker‑Feldman elements and scope)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (explaining when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
- Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (defining when a judgment is void vs. voidable)
- Huston v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 359 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (describing Rule 736 as a streamlined foreclosure procedure and its limits)