Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PNC Bank National Association v. Fisher

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

June 28, 2017

PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM C. FISHER IV, et al. Defendants.

          ORDER

          The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett United States District Judge.

         Before the Court are Plaintiff PNC Bank National Association's ("PNC") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #23), Defendants William C. Fisher, IV and Judy Raymond Fisher's (the "Fishers") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) and Brief in Support of their Motion (Doc. #25), and the Fishers' Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #26). PNC did not respond to the Fishers' Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court grants the Fishers' Motion for Summary Judgment, and denies PNC's cross-motion for summary judgment.

         I. Background

         This case is a judicial foreclosure action brought by PNC against the Fishers. In response, the Fishers countersued for a declaratory judgment that PNC's suit for judicial foreclosure is barred given the applicable statute of limitations. As both parties agree the applicable statute of limitations would have expired on April 24, 2013 without some type of tolling or abandonment, this case hinges on whether PNC abandoned the initial acceleration of the applicable loan before the four year statute of limitations expired.

         The Fishers own a house located at 4642 Waring Street, Houston, Texas 77027, subject to a home equity loan ("Note") and security instrument ("Deed of Trust") now payable to PNC. Doc. #23, at 4-5. The Note was first assigned to RBC Bank ("RBC"). Doc. #23, at 5. The Note and the Deed of Trust contained acceleration clauses, empowering the lender with an option to accelerate the full balance of the loan in the event of a default. Doc. #23, Ex. 1, at 4-9.

         The Fishers first failed to make their required monthly payment in November 2008, and have made no payments since that date. See Doc. #24. As a result, RBC sent the Fishers a letter on January 5, 2009, notifying them of the amount overdue, and providing them thirty days to cure the default or face acceleration of the Note (the "Notice of Intent to Accelerate"). Doc. #23, Ex. 1, at 10. On April 24, 2009, after the Fishers failed to cure the default, RBC sent another notice informing the Fishers that RBC had elected to accelerate the debt (the "April 24, 2009 Acceleration"). Id. at 12. After receiving this notice, Mr. Fisher attempted to negotiate a loan modification with RBC. Doc. #24, Ex. 3, at 6. There is no evidence RBC offered Mr. Fisher a loan modification, and a July 30, 2009 letter sent by RBC's attorney establishes that RBC did not accept Mr. Fisher's requests for modification. Doc. #24, Ex. 2, at 4.

         In September 2009, based on the April 24, 2009 Acceleration, RBC applied for an order under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736 ("Rule 736") allowing it to proceed with an expedited nonjudicial foreclosure. Doc. #23, at 6. The Fishers responded by filing a separate petition challenging RBC's right to foreclose. Id. The Fishers' suit triggered automatic dismissal of RBC's Rule 736 application pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.11. Doc. #23, at 7. In September 2011, RBC filed its second Rule 736 application. Id. The Fishers again filed suit contesting RBC's right to foreclose and again RBC's application was automatically dismissed in February of 2012. Id. Later that year, RBC merged with and into PNC, and all parties agree PNC is now the holder of the Note and Deed of Trust.[1] Doc. #24, at 2. PNC did not file a counterclaim seeking to foreclose in response to the Fishers' lawsuits. See Doc. #23. Instead, the Fishers voluntary dismissed both suits without prejudice each time PNC's Rule 736 applications were dismissed. Id.

         On October 19, 2011, after PNC's first Rule 736 application was dismissed, PNC sent a second letter notifying the Fishers that the bank had elected to accelerate the debt (the "Second Notice of Acceleration"). Doc. #23, Ex. 1, at 14. On two occasions in 2011, Mr. Fisher e-mailed PNC again requesting a loan modification; PNC rejected both requests. Doc. #24, Ex. 3, at 14-15. Finally, on September 6, 2013, PNC sent the Fishers a letter notifying them they could reinstate their loan by paying $112, 956.00-an amount less than the total accelerated balance (the "Reinstatement Quote"). Doc. #23, Ex. 1, at 18. The Fishers did not make any payments to PNC in response to the Reinstatement Quote or at any time since their original default. Doc. #24, at 2.

         II. Law

         a. Motion for Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "The movant bears the burden of identifying those portions of the record it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 485 F.3d 253, 261 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-25 (1986)). If the burden of proof at trial lies with the nonmoving party, the movant may satisfy its initial burden by "'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. While the party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, it does not need to negate the elements of the nonmovant's case. Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "A fact is 'material' if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law." Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 326 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). "If the moving party fails to meet [its] initial burden, the motion [for summary judgment] must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response." United States v. $92, 203.00 in U.S. Currency, 537 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc)).

         When the moving party has met its Rule 56 burden, the nonmoving party cannot survive a summary judgment motion by resting on the mere allegations of its pleadings. The nonmovant must identify specific evidence in the record and articulate how that evidence supports that party's claim. Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 119 (5th Cir. 2007). "This burden will not be satisfied by 'some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.'" Boudreaux, 402 F.3d at 540 (quoting Little, 37 F.3d at 1075). In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Connors v. Graves, 538 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir. 2008).

         b. Limitations and Abandonment

         Under Texas law, a secured lender must bring suit for judicial foreclosure of a real property lien not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues." Boren v. U.S. Nat. Bank Ass'n, 807 F.3d at 104 (5th Cir. 2015), citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.035(a). The applicable four-year statute of limitations for real property actions is found in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.035, addressing (a) judicial foreclosures, and (b) nonjudicial foreclosures.[2]Clawson v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, Civ. A. No. 3:12-CV-00212, 2013 U.S. Dist. 2013 WL 1948128, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 9, 2013). Once the four-year period expires, "the real property lien and a power of sale to enforce the real property lien become void." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ยง 16.035 (d). If, as here, "a note or deed of trust secured by real property contains an optional acceleration clause, " the action accrues "when the holder actually exercises its option to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.