Florida Stanford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et, No. 17-41026 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-41026 Document: 00514452759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-41026 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FLORIDA SUNSHINE STANFORD, FILED May 1, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INCORPORATED; U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CV-510 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant presents several issues for review in her appeal of the final summary judgment entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Caliber Home Loans, Inc., and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.: (1) whether the district court Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-41026 Document: 00514452759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 No. 17-41026 abused its discretion in admitting evidence to determine whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) was triggered by Appellant’s correspondence; (2) whether Appellant’s correspondence qualified as a Qualified Written Report (“QWR”) and, if so, whether Appellee’s responses to the QWRs were adequate under RESPA; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Appellant did not meet her summary judgment burden of coming forth with sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her alleged damages, given Appellant’s failure to prove a RESPA violation. As to each issue, the court has carefully considered the appeal in light of the briefs, proceedings, and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error of law or reversible error of fact. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.