Donald Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
560 F. App'x 233
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Donald and Jacqueline Williams mortgaged Desoto, Texas property; deed of trust and note with Wells Fargo; escrow for taxes and insurance, plus a waiver allowing self-payment with documentation upon request.
- Wells Fargo paid taxes/insurance in 2008, cancelling escrow waiver and triggering default notices and a May 2009 foreclosure; bankruptcy stay and later dismissal of bankruptcy filings.
- Williamses sought loan modification repeatedly (early 2010); no written modification; two later foreclosure notices followed; January 2011 QWR disputed debt and requested postponement of foreclosure.
- Foreclosure sale occurred February 1, 2011; Williamses challenged title/debt and demanded document production; Wells Fargo obtained an original petition for forcible detainer.
- Williamses filed suit in state court; Wells Fargo removed to federal court; district court dismissed most claims, then granted summary judgment on remaining TDCA claim after admissions were deemed admitted.
- District court awarded Wells Fargo attorney’s fees under contract; Williamses appeal the judgments and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract and wrongful foreclosure viability | Williamses contend Wells Fargo breached by accelerating/foreclosing and by paying taxes/insurance under the deed. | Wells Fargo acted per the deed of trust; there was no breach or wrongful foreclosure; oral modification claims are unenforceable under the statute of frauds. | Breach/wrongful foreclosure claims failed; no identifiable contract provision breached; no enforceable loan modification contract. |
| TDCA claims viability (unreasonable collection efforts, charges, and misrepresentations) | Wells Fargo engaged in unlawful collection efforts and improper charges; misled about modification. | TDCA claims lack factual misrepresentation and improper charges; admissions show proper charges and no misrepresentation. | TDCA claims failed; most claims dismissed; summary judgment upheld on remaining TDCA claim due to deemed admissions and lack of misrepresentation evidence. |
| RESPA compliance (QWR responses and damages) | Wells Fargo failed timely/adequate responses to QWRs and caused damages. | QWRs were inadequately alleged; responses did not breach RESPA; no damages shown. | RESPA claim fails; QWRs insufficiently pleaded; no causation of damages. |
| Negligent misrepresentation | Wells Fargo misrepresented loan status and modification offers to induce reliance. | No detrimental reliance shown; statements were not false/misleading under elements. | Negligent misrepresentation dismissed; no justifiable reliance established. |
| Attorneys’ fees under contract and post-judgment review | Fees should be proven as damages or are improperly granted post-judgment. | Rule 54(d)(2) allows contract-based fees; withdrawal of admissions not required; fees appropriate under deed. | Fees award upheld; Rule 54(d)(2) permissible; no abuse of discretion in fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (decisions of forum state govern in diversity actions)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissals; plausibility standard)
- Watson v. Citimortgage, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (contractual breach claims require specific contract provisions)
- Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Blyn II Holding, LLC, 324 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (negligent misrepresentation elements and reliance)
- Richardson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 740 F.3d 1035 (5th Cir. 2014) (Rule 54(d)(2) fees allowed when provided by contract)
- McDonald’s Corp. v. Watson, 69 F.3d 36 (5th Cir. 1995) (contract-based attorney’s fees reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sgroe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 941 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (waiver and statute of frauds considerations in foreclosures)