Chapman v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
814 F. Supp. 2d 716
N.D. Tex.2011Background
- Chapman filed a putative class action against Commonwealth for money had and received, unjust enrichment, RESPA § 2607(b) violations, and breach of implied contract.
- Chapman refinanced his mortgage in September 2007 with Chase, after a 2002 loan from Lonestar, totaling $165,749 for the refinance.
- At closing, Chapman paid a lender title policy premium of $1,303.45 to Commonwealth for the refinance loan.
- Chapman contends the reissue lender title policy is subject to a 25% R-8 discount because the prior loan was paid within five years, with a payoff of $137,204.53 and a $24 recording fee for the Release of Lien.
- Plaintiff argues the discount of $260.50 was unearned and that Commonwealth did not provide services to earn it.
- The court previously dismissed state-law claims but later reinstated them and now addresses summary judgment on unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over state-law TTIA claims | TTIA does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on TDI; no exhaust needed | TTIA creates exclusive jurisdiction in the TDI for TTIA claims | No exclusive TTIA jurisdiction; court retains jurisdiction |
| Whether primary jurisdiction requires deferral to the TDI | Primary jurisdiction does not apply; no administrative procedure needed | TDI should decide issues within its expertise under primary jurisdiction | Primary jurisdiction does not apply; court retains control |
| Whether unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action separate from money had and received | Unjust enrichment is a distinct claim | Unjust enrichment is not independent; it is a restitution theory under money had and received | Unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hancock v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 635 F. Supp. 2d 539 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (TTIA exclusive jurisdiction arguments rejected)
- In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2004) (express grant of exclusive jurisdiction language guidance)
- In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2007) (pervasive regulatory scheme analysis for exclusive jurisdiction)
- Eckerd Mut. Ins. Co. v., 162 S.W.3d 261 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005) (pervasive regulatory scheme considered)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.2002) (primary jurisdiction doctrine criteria)