Hardaway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 4:18-cv-01062

In 2005 Monica Hardaway executed a $300,000 note secured by a deed of trust on 1303 Azalea Bend Dr., Sugar Land, TX.
Loan ownership/servicing history: Long Beach Mortgage → Washington Mutual → FDIC (receiver) → JPMorgan Chase (acquirer/servicer) → assignment to Deutsche Bank as beneficiary; SPS later serviced the loan.
The Hardaways defaulted beginning November 2015; Chase/SPS sent default, acceleration, and foreclosure notices in 2016; foreclosure sale occurred January 3, 2017, at which Deutsche Bank purchased the property.
The Hardaways sued in state court asserting equitable set-aside, TDCPA violations, trespass to try title, fraud/wrongful foreclosure, and requested declaratory/injunctive relief; defendants removed the case to federal court.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court found (1) Deutsche Bank held the original note endorsed in blank at foreclosure, (2) SPS was the mortgage servicer with authority to foreclose, (3) there was no break in the chain of title, and (4) the Hardaways failed to produce admissible evidence; court granted defendants’ motion, denied plaintiffs’, and dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to foreclose (possession of note)	Hardaway: Defendants lacked standing; could not accelerate or foreclose.	Deutsche Bank possessed the original note endorsed in blank, entitling it to enforce the note.	Court: Deutsche Bank had the endorsed-in-blank original note at foreclosure; had standing.
Validity of endorsement / allonge	Hardaway: Endorsement is an improper allonge and thus invalid.	Use of an allonge alone does not create a fact issue; no evidence endorsement is invalid.	Court: No evidence endorsement was improper; endorsement valid; no genuine issue.
Chain of title / assignment challenges	Hardaway: Assignments in chain defective, creating lack of title/standing.	Defendants: Chain (Long Beach → WaMu → FDIC → Chase → Deutsche Bank) is documented; plaintiff may only attack assignments that are void (not merely voidable).	Court: No evidence of void assignments or risk of double recovery; chain intact; standing upheld.
Adequacy/authentication of plaintiff evidence at summary judgment	Hardaway: Submitted exhibits and pleadings to support claims.	Defendants: Many exhibits unauthenticated; amended pleading unverified; plaintiff failed to meet Rule 56 burdens.	Court: Sustained authentication objections; most plaintiff exhibits inadmissible; plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue.

Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., [citation="594 F. App'x 833"] (5th Cir.) (possession of a note endorsed in blank entitles holder to collect)
Kiggundu v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., [citation="469 F. App'x 330"] (5th Cir.) (mortgage follows the note; assignment validity may be immaterial when note holder enforces)
EverBank, N.A. v. Seedergy Ventures, Inc., 499 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (when endorsed in blank, instrument becomes bearer paper; possession suffices)
Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 735 F.3d 220 (5th Cir.) (under Texas law, obligor may only challenge assignments that are void, not merely voidable)
Tri-Cities Constr., Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 523 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (debtor lacks defense to assignment that is only voidable)
Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex.) (effective acceleration requires notice of intent to accelerate and notice of acceleration)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards; nonmoving party must show specific evidence of genuine issue)