Jerry Mason v. Fremont Investment & Loan
671 F. App'x 880
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2005 Mason executed a $128,000 promissory note secured by a deed of trust on property in Palmer, Texas; MERS was named beneficiary as Fremont’s nominee; the deed could be sold without notice.
- In May 2012 MERS assigned the deed to HSBC (as trustee for a securitized trust).
- Mason (pro se) sued in Texas state court in April 2015 against Fremont (later SGGH), MERS, HSBC, and Ocwen, alleging breach of contract, slander of title, void assignment, and fraud, and seeking a declaration that defendants had no rights in the property.
- Defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss; the magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice and denial of leave to amend; Mason failed to object and the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed.
- Mason moved for reconsideration (explaining family illnesses and saying he intended a quiet title claim rather than slander of title); the magistrate issued amended findings recommending denial, no objection was filed, the district court denied reconsideration, and Mason appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed Mason’s challenges for plain error (because he failed to object after a clear warning) and affirmed dismissal and denial of leave to amend and reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mason should be allowed to amend complaint after dismissal | Mason sought leave to amend to assert quiet title (and referenced newly discovered information) and blamed family illnesses for delays | Defendants argued Mason missed the scheduling-order deadline and his proposed amendment was meritless | Denied — review for plain error; amendment would be futile because Mason failed to plead superiority of title, so affirm denial of leave to amend |
| Standard of review for denial of leave to amend and reconsideration | Mason did not object to magistrate’s reports | Defendants pointed to magistrate’s warning that failure to object limits review to plain error | Court applied plain-error review and required clear, obvious error affecting substantial rights; none shown |
| Whether quiet title claim could survive (futility) | Mason argued assignments were invalid and thus defendants had no title | Defendants argued challenges to assignments do not establish plaintiff’s superior title and Mason did not allege he was current on payments or otherwise show superior right | Quiet title would be futile under Texas law because Mason did not plead facts establishing superior title; mere attack on assignment insufficient |
| Whether Mason’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration warranted relief | Mason asserted illness prevented timely response and sought to correct pleadings | Defendants argued he offered no newly discovered evidence, change in law, or clear legal error; delay was unexplained in the Rule 59(e) framework | Denied — motion rehashed prior arguments, offered no new evidence or entitlement under Rule 59(e); district court did not plainly err |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Sabine River Auth. La., 732 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s report limits appellate review to plain error)
- Lawrence v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 808 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2015) (plain-error standard described)
- Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) (futility of amendment measured by Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (quiet title plaintiff must prove superior right to property and cannot rely on weakness of adversary’s title)
- Warren v. Bank of Am., N.A., [citation="566 F. App'x 379"] (5th Cir. 2014) (attacks on assignment validity alone are insufficient to support a Texas quiet title claim)