Anna Wiltse v. Carrington Mtge Svc, L.L.C., No. 13-10078 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-10078 Document: 00512380342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED September 20, 2013 No. 13-10078 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANNA JOYCE WILTSE Plaintiff - Appellant v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, L.L.C. Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-0680 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anna Joyce Wiltse brought an action against Carrington Mortgage Services in Texas state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Carrington s lien on her home is invalid. Wiltse alleges that the lien, which secures a $68,000 loan, is invalid due to noncompliance with Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution. Specifically, Wiltse alleges that the amount of the loan was greater than eighty percent of the fair market value of her home, and that she * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10078 Document: 00512380342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2013 No. 13-10078 was charged more than three percent of the loan s value for closing fees. Carrington removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss Wiltse s claim as time-barred. Carrington argued that the four-year residual limitations period of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.051, which applies to [e]very action for which there is no express limitations period, except an action for the recovery of real property, is applicable to Wiltse s claim. The district court granted Carrington s motion and dismissed Wiltse s claim. On appeal, Wiltse argues that the residual limitations period does not apply to an action under Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution. However, as Wiltse recognizes, this argument is foreclosed by our holding in Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district 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.