Nicholas D. Mosser v. Flagstar Bank, FSB Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
This text of Nicholas D. Mosser v. Flagstar Bank, FSB Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Nicholas D. Mosser v. Flagstar Bank, FSB Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) 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.
Opinion
Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 1, 2024
SIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-01139-CV
NICHOLAS D. MOSSER, Appellant
V.
FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., AND FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellees
On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-06006-2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Before the Court is a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
filed by appellees Flagstar Bank, N.A. (Flagstar), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
(SPS), and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively
Appellees). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Appellant’s notice of appeal states he appeals “all judgments and orders from
the trial court signed by Judge Bouressa, including the final judgments on August
10, 2023[.]” No judgment was signed on August 10, 2023. The order Appellant refers to as the August 10, 2023 judgment is an order signed on August 3, 2023 (the
August 3 Order). The trial court made the following rulings in the August 3 Order:
(1) granted Flagstar and SPS’s motion for summary judgment as to Appellant’s
supplemental petition; (2) granted SPS’s summary judgment motion on its
counterclaims against Appellant; (3) granted Freddie Mac’s summary judgment
motion on Appellant’s claims against Freddie Mac; and (4) ordered that SPS was
entitled to foreclose on Appellant’s property. The trial court did not dispose of
Appellant’s pending claims against First Guarantee Mortgage Corporation (FGMC).
FGMC is not a party to this appellate proceeding.
The trial court also ordered that Appellant’s claims against Flagstar, SPS, and
Freddie Mac and SPS’s counterclaim against Appellant be severed from the original
cause number 471-06006-2009. The trial court assigned the severed claims a new
trial court cause number, 471-04378-2023 (the Severed Cause). Appellant’s claims
against FGMC remained pending in cause number 417-06006-2009 (the Original
Cause). Appellant’s appeal of the August 3 Order as to the severed claims is the
subject of appellate cause number 05-23-01140-CV. This appeal, in contrast,
references and concerns the Original Cause, 471-06006-2019.
Appellees move to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction because no final
judgment or appealable interlocutory order has been signed in the Original Cause.
We agree this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant’s claims against
Appellees, and the August 3 Order disposing of those claims, were severed into trial
–2– court cause number 471-04378-2023. Appellant’s appeal from the August 3 Order
in the Severed Cause is pending in this Court under appellate cause number 05-23-
01140-CV. This appeal, in contrast, references the Original Cause in which
Appellant’s claims against FGMC remain pending. No final judgment or appealable
interlocutory order has been signed in the Original Cause. We, therefore, lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266,
272 (Tex. 1992) (appeals may only be taken from final judgments that dispose of all
parties and claims and interlocutory orders if authorized by statute).
CONCLUSION
Although more than ten days have passed since Appellees filed their motion
to dismiss, Appellant has not filed a response or otherwise disputed Appellees’
assertions. Moreover, nothing before us reflects a final judgment or appealable
interlocutory order has been signed in the Original Cause. Accordingly, with nothing
before us demonstrating we have jurisdiction over the appeal, we grant Appellees’
motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a)(1).
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE 231139F.P05
–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS D. MOSSER, Appellant On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas No. 05-23-01139-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 471-06006- 2019. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., SELECT Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Kipness, Justices Pedersen, III and AND FEDERAL HOME LOAN Garcia participating. MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellees Flagstar Bank, N.A., Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Nicholas D. Mosser.
Judgment entered this 1st day of February 2024.
–4–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nicholas D. Mosser v. Flagstar Bank, FSB Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-d-mosser-v-flagstar-bank-fsb-select-portfolio-servicing-inc-texapp-2024.