Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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