Monique Scranton and Karey Scranton v. Ditech Financial, LLC and Newrez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and overruled the plaintiffs’ objections. The court granted Shellpoint’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ invalid-lien, wrongful-foreclosure, and title-related claims, denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot, and ordered that final judgment be entered.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs' affidavits did not create a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether Exhibit E was included in the contracts or whether the property was collateral. The affidavits were conclusory and unsupported by other evidence, and plaintiffs did not show a basis for using parol evidence to supply or alter the property's legal description.
2. The December 15, 2004 correction deed had no legal effect on the validity of the mechanic's lien or retail installment contracts, even assuming the deed was forged or part of a fraudulent scheme.
3. Plaintiffs' forgery theory did not affect the outcome because, even if the correction deed were void as forged, the deed had no legal effect on Shellpoint's lien interest or the underlying loan transaction.
4. Plaintiffs could not obtain relief on a new forgery-based legal claim raised for the first time in their summary-judgment response or objections, and their request for leave to amend was forfeited and improper.
5. Plaintiffs were not entitled to defer summary judgment or obtain additional discovery under Rule 56(d) because they made only vague assertions about unspecified evidence and failed to show diligence or explain how the requested discovery would affect the dispositive issues.
6. Shellpoint was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' wrongful-foreclosure claim, invalid-lien declaratory-judgment claim, and title-related claim. Because plaintiffs did not establish a basis to invalidate Shellpoint's lien interest, their requested title relief also failed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs established a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether Exhibit E, which described the property serving as collateral, was part of the mechanic's lien and retail installment contracts.
2. Whether alleged defects in the execution of the December 15, 2004 correction deed rendered the mechanic's lien contract invalid or otherwise affected Shellpoint's interest in the property.
3. Whether plaintiffs' forgery theory, raised in response to summary judgment rather than in the operative pleading, could support relief or a newly asserted declaratory-judgment claim.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) before the court ruled on summary judgment.
5. Whether plaintiffs' wrongful-foreclosure and title-related claims could survive after the court determined that Shellpoint's lien was valid.
6. Whether Shellpoint's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied as moot after summary judgment was granted.

Disposition

other