Livingston v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
4:11-cv-00085
E.D. Tex.Apr 13, 2012Background
- Foreclosure of real property at 2017 Munro Park Ave., Corinth, Texas 76208.
- Plaintiffs allege wrongful foreclosure and seek various relief including declaratory and accounting claims.
- Defendants move for summary judgment arguing proper notices were sent, sale not grossly inadequate, and no causal link to any alleged defects.
- Defendants also seek judgment on fraud, FDCPA, Texas Finance Code, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices claims.
- Plaintiffs did not timely respond; court treats silence as opposition conceding lack of genuine issues on all claims.
- Court grants summary judgment to Defendants, with all claims dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have a valid wrongful-foreclosure claim | Livingston | Wells Fargo and affiliates | No genuine issue; foreclosure valid and proper notices shown |
| Whether there was misrepresentation or failed loan modification promises | Livingston | No actionable misrepresentation; modification promises not enforceable | No genuine issue; no misrepresentation actionable under law |
| Whether FDCPA claims survive considering who is a debt collector | Livingston | Defendants are not 'debt collectors' under FDCPA | No genuine issue; FDCPA not violated |
| Whether Texas Finance Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims survive | Livingston | No unfair debt collection or deceptive practice | No genuine issue; claims fail as a matter of law |
| Whether declaratory relief or accounting is warranted | Livingston | No justiciable controversy; accounting not required | No genuine issue; no basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 2001) (movant bears burden to show absence of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard: weighing evidence, not mere allegations)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant may meet burden by showing absence of evidence for nonmovant)
- Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 1998) (nonmovant must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996) (nonmovant cannot rely on conclusory allegations)
- Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999) (standard for summary judgment decisions)