Wilson v. Bank of America, N.A.
4:12-cv-00857
N.D. Tex.Dec 17, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Tommy Wilson and Stacy Wilson-Freeman filed suit in Texas state court against Bank of America, N.A.
- Bank of America removed the case to this district court claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity and an amount in controversy over $75,000.
- Bank of America argued the amount in controversy is the fair market value of the property securing the loan when the plaintiff seeks to protect the entire property.
- The court ordered an amended notice of removal with supporting documentation because the amount in controversy was not clearly established.
- Plaintiffs alleged a note and deed of trust with Countrywide Home Loans and MERS; they claim no record of assignment to Bank of America and question defendant’s authority to foreclose.
- The court concluded the petition did not establish the requisite amount in controversy and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have federal subject matter jurisdiction? | Wilson/others argue no jurisdiction exists. | Bank contends diversity exists and amount exceeds $75,000. | No subject matter jurisdiction; case remanded. |
| Is the amount in controversy greater than $75,000? | N/A | Value exceeds $75,000 based on property value and anticipated foreclosure relief. | Not established by preponderance of the evidence; insufficient to exceed $75,000. |
| How is the amount in controversy determined when the petition lacks a dollar amount? | N/A | Should be measured by the property's value and relief sought. | Court requires evidence showing the amount more likely than not exceeds $75,000. |
| Is removal proper where the true nature of the claims undermines amount in controversy? | Claims are vague and do not demonstrate a larger claim. | Authorities support removal based on potential foreclosure-related relief. | Remand appropriate; insufficient evidence to establish jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manguno v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (burden on removing party to show jurisdiction; strict construction of removal)
- Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1995) (removal raises federalism concerns; doubts resolved against removal)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000) (resolve doubts about removal jurisdiction against federal jurisdiction)
- Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995) (amount in controversy must be shown by evidence)
- Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas Inc., 351 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 2003) (amount in controversy measured from plaintiff's perspective)