Ernest Smallwood, Jr. v. Bank of America N.

Fifth Circuit

Ernest Smallwood, Jr. v. Bank of America N.

670 F. App'x 333

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 11, 2016

Docket16-10563 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 333 (Ernest Smallwood, Jr. v. Bank of America N.) 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

Ernest Smallwood, Jr. v. Bank of America N., 670 F. App'x 333 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The magistrate judge aptly described this pro se action as follows: “In this garden-variety mortgage foreclosure case, Plaintiffs sought to avoid a threatened foreclosure sale of their home by contending that a transfer of interest between two entities was invalid due to an improper assignment of the note and/or deed of trust on the property. They requested quiet title in their favor, damages, a declaratory judgment, and an injunction preventing the foreclosure.”

In a thorough and convincing eight-page analysis, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the defendant banks’ motion to dismiss. The district court agreed, and the plaintiffs appeal.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge. The assignment was authorized by well-established Fifth Circuit law. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 802 F.3d 777, 780 (5th Cir. 2015); Reece v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 762 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2014); Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 722 F.3d 249, 253, 255 (5th Cir. 2013). The quiet-title theory fails because the plaintiffs had no sound title, having made their last mortgage payment in 2007. The plaintiffs’ other contentions are equally meritless, as the magistrate judge explained.

*334 The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

The magistrate judge aptly described this pro se action as follows: “In this garden-variety mortgage foreclosure case, Plaintiffs sought to avoid a threatened foreclosure sale of their home by contending that a transfer of interest between two entities was invalid due to an improper assignment of the note and/or deed of trust on the property. They requested quiet title in their favor, damages, a declaratory judgment, and an injunction preventing the foreclosure.”

In a thorough and convincing eight-page analysis, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the defendant banks’ motion to dismiss. The district court agreed, and the plaintiffs appeal.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge. The assignment was authorized by well-established Fifth Circuit law. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 802 F.3d 777, 780 (5th Cir. 2015); Reece v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 762 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2014); Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 722 F.3d 249, 253, 255 (5th Cir. 2013). The quiet-title theory fails because the plaintiffs had no sound title, having made their last mortgage payment in 2007. The plaintiffs’ other contentions are equally meritless, as the magistrate judge explained.

*334 The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

*

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)

670 F. App'x 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-smallwood-jr-v-bank-of-america-n-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack