Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. v. Kingdom Group Investments, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 12, 2024
Docket05-23-00656-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. v. Kingdom Group Investments, Inc. (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. v. Kingdom Group Investments, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. v. Kingdom Group Investments, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

REVERSE and REMAND and Opinion Filed August 12, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00656-CV

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1 TRUST 2006-NC5 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-NC5, Appellant V. KINGDOM GROUP INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-05683-2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee in trust for the registered

holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Trust 2006-NC5 mortgage pass through

certificates series 2006-NC5 appeals the trial court’s default judgment declaring

Kingdom Group Investments, Inc. the owner of certain property in Murphy, Texas,

and discharging a deed of trust claimed by Deutsche Bank encumbering the property.

In a single issue, Deutsche Bank argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment because attempted service on Deutsche Bank was invalid. We

reverse the trial court’s default judgment and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

In October 2022, Kingdom Group filed its original petition alleging Deutsche

Bank claimed ownership of certain property in Murphy, Texas. Kingdom Group

brought an action to quiet title asking the trial court to render a decree that Kingdom

Group owns the property free and clear of any lien claimed by Deutsche Bank.

Regarding service of process, the petition provided the following:

Defendant is sued in its capacity as a foreign fiduciary corporation. Defendant has not registered to do business in the State of Texas with the Secretary of State, either as a foreign fiduciary corporation or as a foreign corporation. It does not maintain a registered agent for service of process, and has no regular place of business in the State of Texas. Accordingly, service of process should be upon the Texas Secretary of State, pursuant to C.P.R.C. Section 17.044. Process should then be transmitted to Defendant at its home office, as shown on the records of the Collin County clerk . . .

The petition then listed an address for Deutsche Bank in Irving, California. Thus,

Kingdom Group asserted substituted service of process on the secretary of state was

proper under the Texas long-arm statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §

17.044.

Attached to the petition were copies of the citation and the “Whitney

Certificate”1 from the Texas Secretary of State stating that a copy of the citation and

original petition in the cause styled “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as

1 See Whitney v. L&L Realty Corp., 500 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1973). –2– trustee in trust for the registered holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Trust

2006-NC5 mortgage pass through certificates series 2006-NC5” was received and

forwarded via certified mail, return receipt requested, to “Detusche Bank National

Trust Company, as trustee in trust for the registered holders of Morgan Stanley ABS

Capital 1 Trust 2006-NC5 mortgage pass through certificates series 2006-NC5.”

(Emphasis added). The citation also correctly named “Deutsche Bank” in its style

and incorrectly named “Detusche Bank” in one place where it listed the party to

whom the citation was directed. The Whitney Certificate stated that “The PROCESS

was returned to this office on February 16, 2023, Bearing The Notation Return To

Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable To Forward.”

In March 2023, Kingdom Group filed a motion for entry of default judgment

against Deutsch Bank alleging the return of service was “in due form” and had been

on file for more than ten days, the appearance date had lapsed, and Deutsche Bank

failed to appear or otherwise answer. The motion stated that, by virtue of its default,

Deutsche Bank admitted the material allegations of Kingdom Group’s petition.

Therefore, Kingdom Group asked the court to enter a final judgment in its favor.

That same day, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Kingdom Group declaring

it the owner of the property in Murphy, Texas, and discharging a deed of trust

claimed by Deutsche Bank encumbering the property. This restricted appeal

followed.

–3– ANALYSIS

In a single issue, Deutsche Bank argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

enter a default judgment because attempted service on Deutsche Bank was invalid.

To prevail on its restricted appeal, Deutsche Bank must establish that: (1) it

filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed;

(2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing

that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any postjudgment

motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is

apparent on the face of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30; Alexander v. Lynda’s

Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004). Deutsche Bank focuses its argument

on the fourth element, arguing that error is apparent on the face of the record, which

shows Kingdom Group failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 17.028

of the civil practice and remedies code in serving process on Deutsche Bank. See

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.028; Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848.

Section 17.028 provides citation may be served on a financial institution by:

(1) serving the registered agent of the financial institution; or (2) if the financial

institution does not have a registered agent, serving the president or a branch

manager at any office located in this state. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.028.

In Moss, a case which we find dispositive of this appeal, Moss failed to serve

the “registered agent” that the defendant bank had designated under the business

organizations code. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass'n as Tr. for Residential Asset Mortg. Prod.,

–4– Inc., Mortg. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-EFC2 v. Moss,

644 S.W.3d 130, 131 (Tex. 2022). Instead, because the bank was domiciled in Ohio

and acting as a foreign corporate fiduciary in Texas,2 Moss served it with process by

serving the secretary of state under Chapter 505 of the estates code. Id. at 131–32.

Section 505.004 of the estates code provides that a foreign corporate fiduciary must

appoint the secretary of state as the fiduciary’s agent for service of process “in an

action or proceeding relating to a trust, estate, fund, or other matter within this state

with respect to which the fiduciary is acting in a fiduciary capacity.” TEX. EST. CODE

§ 505.004(a)(2). The secretary issued a Whitney Certificate documenting that the

secretary’s office forwarded the citation by certified mail to Kristin A. Strong, whom

the bank had designated under Chapter 505 as the person to receive process. Id. at

132. The citation was returned to the secretary bearing the notation “Return to

Sender, No Such Number, Unable to Forward.” Id. Moss moved for a no-answer

default judgment, which the trial court granted. Id.

The Texas Supreme Court determined that compliance with section 17.028 is

mandatory when the defendant is a financial institution. Id. at 134.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Whitney v. L & L REALTY CORPORATION
500 S.W.2d 94 (Texas Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. v. Kingdom Group Investments, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-as-trustee-in-trust-for-the-texapp-2024.