Cheryl Johnson-Williams v. CitiMortgage, Incorpora
18-10365
| 5th Cir. | Sep 20, 2018Background
- In 2006 Cheryl Johnson-Williams executed a note and deed of trust to purchase a Texas home; the deed was assigned to CitiMortgage.
- After Johnson-Williams defaulted, CitiMortgage conducted a non-judicial foreclosure sale in 2014 and obtained a substitute trustee’s deed.
- Johnson-Williams repeatedly sued CitiMortgage in multiple forums: an earlier federal case (removed from state court) alleging fraud, § 12.002 violations, and slander of title was dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
- CitiMortgage won a forcible detainer action in Texas justice and appellate courts; that action determines possession, not title.
- The day after the Texas court of appeals decision, Johnson-Williams sued again in state court asserting breach of contract and quiet title claims rooted in the same loan, documents, and foreclosure.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) on res judicata grounds; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson-Williams' new suit is barred by res judicata | Her claims are distinct and should not be precluded; invites narrowing of preclusion doctrine | Prior final judgments involve same parties, property, documents and transaction; claims could have been raised earlier | Res judicata bars the action; affirmed |
| Applicable preclusion law | N/A (argued to change Texas law) | Texas transactional approach governs preclusion; federal law defers to state law here | Apply Texas transactional test; plaintiff may not relitigate claims arising from same facts |
| Whether prior forcible detainer judgment precludes claims on title/merits | Forcible detainer does not decide title; plaintiff contends title merits remain | Prior litigation series (including federal case) already addressed related challenges; claims are transactional duplicates | Preclusion applies based on the cumulative effect of prior judgments; plaintiff's new suit is an echo of prior suits |
| Whether court should adopt older cause-of-action-based rule (Moore v. Snowball) | Urged revival of cause-of-action/individualized concept to avoid preclusion | Texas Supreme Court replaced that rule with the transactional test; court cannot overrule state law | Court declines to revisit Texas law; plaintiff forfeited challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Plains Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(c) review)
- Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir.) (res judicata review standard)
- Kansa Reins. Co. v. Cong. Mortg. Corp. of Tex., 20 F.3d 1362 (5th Cir.) (dismissal on pleadings permitted when res judicata is apparent)
- Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir.) (judicial notice of public records appropriate)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S.) (governs preclusive effect of federal judgments)
- Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.) (Texas adoption of transactional test for claim preclusion)