Hutchinson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Fifth Circuit

Hutchinson v. Bank of America, N.A.

575 F. App'x 443

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 17, 2014

DocketNo. 13-20658

StatusPublished

This text of 575 F. App'x 443 (Hutchinson v. Bank of America, N.A.) 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

Hutchinson v. Bank of America, N.A., 575 F. App'x 443 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony L. Hutchinson appeals the October 16, 2013 Final Judgment of the district court dismissing [444]*444all claims with prejudice. We affirm.¹

Hutchinson purchased real estate in Houston, Texas in 2006, executing promissory notes and deeds of trust on which he defaulted in August 2008. Following Hutchinson’s years of occupancy of the property but non-payment of monthly installments plus other defaults, Defendant-Appellee Bank of America (“BOA”) instituted foreclosure proceedings on one of the properties and bought it in at foreclosure sale, but did not institute foreclosure proceedings on the other property at that time. A few months earlier, Hutchinson had sued BOA in state court for damages and injunctive relief against foreclosure. Then, in September 2012, he amended his state court claim to add a number of common law and statutory claims. The state court proceedings were removed to the district court.

In response to BOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the district court painstakingly analyzed the claims Hutchinson asserted under the Texas Property Code § 51.002(d), Texas Finance Code § 158.101 / Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 79, and the State Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for breach of contract and negligence. One by one, the Court debunked each of those dilatory actions by Hutchinson, clearly aimed at prolonging occupancy and possession of the properties while avoiding payments on the obligations secured by the encumbrances.

As we agree totally with the reasoning and results set forth by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion & Order of even date with its Final Judgment, we will not further waste the time of the parties or judicial resources by reiterating that analysis. It suffices that the district court “got it right” in every instance.

For the reasons set forth by the district court, its Final Judgment dismissing Hutchinson’s claims with prejudice is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED at Hutchinson’s costs.

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:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony L. Hutchinson appeals the October 16, 2013 Final Judgment of the district court dismissing [444]*444all claims with prejudice. We affirm.¹

Hutchinson purchased real estate in Houston, Texas in 2006, executing promissory notes and deeds of trust on which he defaulted in August 2008. Following Hutchinson’s years of occupancy of the property but non-payment of monthly installments plus other defaults, Defendant-Appellee Bank of America (“BOA”) instituted foreclosure proceedings on one of the properties and bought it in at foreclosure sale, but did not institute foreclosure proceedings on the other property at that time. A few months earlier, Hutchinson had sued BOA in state court for damages and injunctive relief against foreclosure. Then, in September 2012, he amended his state court claim to add a number of common law and statutory claims. The state court proceedings were removed to the district court.

In response to BOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the district court painstakingly analyzed the claims Hutchinson asserted under the Texas Property Code § 51.002(d), Texas Finance Code § 158.101 / Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 79, and the State Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for breach of contract and negligence. One by one, the Court debunked each of those dilatory actions by Hutchinson, clearly aimed at prolonging occupancy and possession of the properties while avoiding payments on the obligations secured by the encumbrances.

As we agree totally with the reasoning and results set forth by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion & Order of even date with its Final Judgment, we will not further waste the time of the parties or judicial resources by reiterating that analysis. It suffices that the district court “got it right” in every instance.

For the reasons set forth by the district court, its Final Judgment dismissing Hutchinson’s claims with prejudice is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED at Hutchinson’s costs.

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)

575 F. App'x 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-bank-of-america-na-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack