Val-Com Acquisitions Trust v. Chase Home Finance, LLC , 425 F. App'x 284 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-10034 Document: 00511473514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 11, 2011
    No. 11-10034                           Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                              Clerk
    VAL-COM ACQUISITIONS TRUST; VALERIE SMITH; SYLVIA SMITH,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants
    v.
    CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C.,
    Defendant - Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:10-CV-429-Y
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Valerie and Sylvia Smith purchased a home in 2007, financing the
    purchase through a note and deed of trust payable to NTFN, Inc. Thereafter,
    they transferred title to the home to Val-Com Acquisitions. In 2010, all three
    sued Defendant Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. (“Chase”) alleging violations of the
    Truth-In-Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
    (“RESPA”) as well as state-law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 11-10034 Document: 00511473514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2011
    No. 11-10034
    and declaratory judgment. After Chase removed to a federal district court, they
    filed an amended complaint, changing the basis of their declaratory relief from
    the relevant Texas statute to the federal statute.
    Chase moved to dismiss. The district court granted Chase’s motion under
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The only matter briefed before this
    court is the propriety of the dismissal of Appellants’ claims for declaratory relief
    regarding Chase’s status relative to the property in question. Thus, we conclude
    that any appeal of the other matters dismissed has been waived. Mullins v.
    TestAmerica, Inc., 
    564 F.3d 386
    , 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e deem this issue
    waived due to inadequate briefing.”).
    In their amended complaint, Appellants stated: “Defendant Chase claims
    to be the holder of the Note, and the person entitled to enforce the Note. . . .
    Defendant Chase claims to be the holder of the Deed of Trust, and the person
    entitled to enforce the Deed of Trust [and] . . . claims to be the current mortgage
    servicer of the Note.” They allege no facts whatsoever casting doubt on Chase’s
    status as assignee of the relevant documents.          They simply asked for “a
    determination and declaration of whether Defendant Chase is the owner and/or
    holder of the Note and Deed of Trust” and similar declarations regarding
    whether Chase is the mortgage servicer and entitled to enforce and bring a
    foreclosure action on the relevant documents.
    A federal declaratory judgment action requires an actual case or
    controversy, not a mere hypothetical issue. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co.,
    
    344 U.S. 237
    , 242 (1952). “Our decisions have required that the dispute be
    ‘definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal
    interests’; and that it be ‘real and substantial’ . . . .” MedImmune, Inc. v.
    Genentech, Inc., 
    549 U.S. 118
    , 127 (2007) (internal citations omitted). The
    district court concluded that Appellants did not allege an actual, current case or
    controversy on these points, and we agree. While there could be a dispute
    2
    Case: 11-10034 Document: 00511473514 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2011
    No. 11-10034
    between the parties here, absent an allegation – even on information and belief
    – that Chase is not who it says it is, there is nothing for the district court to
    adjudicate.1 Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed this case.
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    Lozano v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 
    489 F.3d 636
    , 639 (5th Cir. 2007), is inapposite. That
    case involved a declaratory judgment to set aside a foreclosure deed that the plaintiffs
    contended was entered improperly because they had previously paid the note. 
    Id. at 638
    .
    Here, the portions of the complaint on which the appeal is based do no more than ask whether
    Chase is the proper party to pursue foreclosure, etc.; they fail to allege any facts in
    controversy.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-10034

Citation Numbers: 425 F. App'x 284

Judges: Higginbotham, Smith, Haynes

Filed Date: 5/11/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024