Elizabeth Callan v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company

Fifth Circuit

Elizabeth Callan v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company

654 F. App'x 171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 2016

Docket15-20709

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 654 F. App'x 171 (Elizabeth Callan v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elizabeth Callan v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, 654 F. App'x 171 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Elizabeth Callan appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). The challenged order of March 21, 2015 declared only that Deutsche Bank’s hen and power of sale over Callan’s residential *172 property were not barred by the statute of limitations. Both parties now agree that the same lien was released and discharged by the mortgage servicer on November 26, 2014. Because the lien that was the subject of the challenged order no longer exists, neither party has a “personal stake in the outcome” of any additional litigation on this issue. Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). We find no case or controversy to address, so this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not Be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Elizabeth Callan appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). The challenged order of March 21, 2015 declared only that Deutsche Bank’s hen and power of sale over Callan’s residential *172 property were not barred by the statute of limitations. Both parties now agree that the same lien was released and discharged by the mortgage servicer on November 26, 2014. Because the lien that was the subject of the challenged order no longer exists, neither party has a “personal stake in the outcome” of any additional litigation on this issue. Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). We find no case or controversy to address, so this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not Be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 F. App'x 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elizabeth-callan-v-deutsche-bank-trust-company-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack