Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

After a criminal investigation resulted in the Government seizing a 2005 Pilatus Aircraft, Bearing Tail No. N679PE, and instituting a civil forfeiture proceeding against the plane, Claimants claimed interest in the aircraft. Claimants are Pablo Zarate Juarez, who is a Mexican citizen, as well as Viza Construction and Premier International Holdings. The district court dismissed the claims under the Fugitive Disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. 2466, and denied Claimants' motion to stay the civil proceedings. The court concluded that the record supports a finding that Zarate remained outside the United States to intentionally avoid criminal prosecution. Therefore, the elements of section 2466 are met and the claims in opposition lack merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. 2005 Pilatus Aircraft" on Justia Law

After plaintiff sold a Mark Rothko painting to David Martinez through L&M Arts, she filed suit alleging that she was fraudulently induced into selling the painting with assurances of secrecy and that the eventual public re-sale of the painting constituted a breach of a confidentiality provision in her agreement with the original buyer. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to show that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding each element of Texas fraudulent inducement; L&M was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim where the confidentiality clause did not require secrecy as to the fact of the 2007 sale, and the jury therefore did not hear evidence from which it could reasonably have found that L&M breached the Agreement; and even if a reasonable jury could have found that L&M breached the agreement, L&M would nevertheless be entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the jury’s damages award rested on a legally non-viable measure of damages. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for L&M on plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim; affirmed the district court's judgment as a matter of law for the Martinez defendants on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim; reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law for L&M on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim; and affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 38.001(8). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hoffman v. Martinez" on Justia Law

LSR appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment denying its wrongful-foreclosure claims and award of attorneys' fees to Wells Fargo. The court concluded that Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment on the wrongful-foreclosure claim because LSR cannot establish an essential element. Under Texas law, a party alleging wrongful foreclosure must prove a defect in the foreclosure-sale proceedings. In this case, the court concluded that there is no genuine dispute as to whether Wells Fargo mailed notices of intent to accelerate. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that LSR brought its Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692g, claim in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "LSR Consulting v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against WAF and RMS, alleging breach of a reverse mortgage agreement and fraudulent inducement. Plaintiff primarily argued that the property’s foreclosure could have been avoided if WAF had not issued a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (a HECM) in violation of the United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines. The court held that HUD regulations govern the relationship between the reverse-mortgage lender and HUD as insurer of the loan. HUD regulations do not give the borrower a private cause of action unless the regulations are expressly incorporated into the lender-borrower agreement. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissal, holding that plaintiff cannot assert a claim against defendants for breach of HUD regulations, there was no breach of contract, and no valid fraudulent inducement claim. View "Johnson v. World Alliance Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

In this appeal stemming from a failed real estate investment, plaintiffs challenged the district court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award in favor of the Rainier parties involved in marketing the investment. The real estate transactions underlying this appeal have already been described in greater depth in Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Management, L.P., 546 F. App’x 491, 492–93 (5th Cir. 2013). The court affirmed the district court's judgment confirming the arbitration award, concluding that plaintiffs have not identified any basis for vacating the arbitration award. View "Rainier DSC 1, LLC v. Rainier Capital Mgmt." on Justia Law

In this appeal stemming from a failed real estate investment, plaintiffs challenged the district court's judgments in favor of the non-arbitrating defendants. The real estate transactions underlying this appeal have already been described in greater depth in Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Management, L.P., 546 F. App’x 491, 492–93 (5th Cir. 2013). The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs have not shown that the district court erred in not staying the litigation of the non-arbitrating parties during the arbitration or in granting summary judgment in favor of FSA and the physicians. View "Rainier DSC 1, LLC v. Rainier Capital Mgmt." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Fannie Mae, seeking to quiet title on the ground that Wells Fargo waived its right to foreclose by accepting payments for sixteen months after the initial default, so it could not sell the property at issue to Fannie Mae. The court concluded that Wells Fargo engaged only in conduct that was contemplated by the DOT’s non-waiver provisions and thus was entirely consistent with its intent to preserve the right to accelerate and foreclose. Therefore, plaintiff failed to allege any facts that would make his claim to relief plausible. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his suit. View "Martin v. Federal National Mtge Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that it acquired title to the foreclosed property at issue by a tax sale and filed suit to quiet title in state court. Defendant removed the action to federal court and counter-claimed for declaratory relief. The district court dismissed the suit and found that the tax sale was void, quieting title in favor of defendant. The court determined that the district court properly concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s suit. A quiet title action against the federal government must be brought in federal court, and when the state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, no jurisdiction is added by removal to federal court. The court also concluded that in the absence of consent from the federal government, the sale of the property under state law was invalid. While the statute preserves local “power to tax,” it does not permit local governments to seize and sell federal government property. Therefore, the tax sale of federally owned real estate was null and void, and the district court rightly quieted title in favor of the Secretary. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Equity Trust Co. v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BOA and Wells Fargo alleging, among other claims, that BOA had violated Section 51.002(d) of the Texas Property Code and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code Ann. 392.301(a)(8), 392.303(a)(2), and 392.304(a)(8). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for BOA. The court concluded that, even if section 51.002(d) authorizes a private cause of action, plaintiff fails to state a claim because she did not allege that BOA attempted to send her a timely notice of sale or to initiate foreclosure. Further, the court concluded that, irrespective of any statutory notice requirements, BOA did not violate section 392.301(a)(8) of the TDCA by threatening to foreclose; plaintiff failed to allege a violation of section 392.303(a)(2); and plaintiff failed to establish any of the elements required by section 392.304(a)(8). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rucker v. Bank of America" on Justia Law