Van Duzer v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
995 F. Supp. 2d 673
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Plaintiffs obtained a $556,000 home equity loan on Feb 21, 2006 from Homecomings, secured by a first lien; MERS named as beneficiary; GMAC Mortgage LLC serviced the loan.
- In 2007 MERS sought judicial foreclosure; Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the SDTX, which was confirmed in 2007.
- Plaintiffs converted to Chapter 7 in 2008, obtained a discharge, and a 2009 bankruptcy order noted automatic stay terminated on exempt property.
- A prior 2010 lawsuit against the 2010 Defendants was filed and later remanded; state court later granted summary judgment against those defendants in 2011.
- The Note and Security Instrument were assigned to U.S. Bank on June 12, 2012; U.S. Bank sought foreclosure in 2013.
- Plaintiffs filed this pro se suit; Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings; the court granted the motion, dismissing all claims as to standing, res judicata effects, and failure to plead plausible causes of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar these claims? | Van Duzers contend ongoing challenges to the original lending and MERS-related roles are unresolved. | Defendants argue prior Texas actions foreclose relitigation of those subject-matter events. | Yes; claims based on the initial lending transaction are barred. |
| Did Defendants have standing to foreclose after the 2012 assignment? | Plaintiffs claim assignment was invalid or forged and thus foreclose improperly. | Assignment from MERS as Homecomings’ nominee was valid and recorded; standing to foreclose vested in assignee. | Yes; the assignment is facially valid and Defendants had standing. |
| Are the asserted RICO/conspiracy/fraud theories plausibly pled? | Defendants engaged in a systemic scheme including forged documents and MERS manipulations. | Claims are conclusory, lack plausible facts, or rely on res judicata/standing conclusions. | No; pleadings fail to state a plausible claim. |
| Are TILA/RESPA claims and other counts independently viable? | Transfers and disclosures violated TILA/RESPA and related rights. | Counts are barred by res judicata or lack the factual basis and have been inadequately pleaded. | No; claims either barred or inadequately pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (pleading plausibility standard; plausibility required for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; factual allegations must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2013) (MERS assignment validity; beneficiary may foreclose without holding note)
- Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 735 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2013) (facially valid assignments cannot be challenged for authority except by defrauded assignor)
- Kansa Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Cong. Mortgage Corp. of Texas, 20 F.3d 1362 (5th Cir. 1994) (res judicata analysis in federal courts; state judgment preclusion principles apply)
- Guidry v. American Public Life Insurance Co., 512 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard aligned with Rule 12(c) dismissal)
- Greenberg v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 478 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1973) (12(c) motion standard analogous to Rule 12(b)(6))