Tina Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 18-20289 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-20289 Document: 00514695534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-20289 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 24, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk TINA ALEXANDER, Plaintiff−Appellant, versus WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant−Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:15-CV-1596 Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tina Alexander defaulted on her mortgage. To stem foreclosure, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-20289 Document: 00514695534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2018 No. 18-20289 sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) pro se. The district court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed. This court reversed in part and remanded. Again, the district court dismissed, and Alexander, now represented by counsel, once more appeals. The main dispute is whether Wells Fargo complied with applicable law regarding the handling of an Acknowledgment of Value. Alexander claimed her copy was lost. During the previous appeal, Wells Fargo supplied a copy. On remand, the district court explained that “[c]onstrued liberally, Plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim for quiet title based on Wells Fargo’s failure to timely supplement a missing acknowledgment of Fair Market Value in violation of Texas Constitution Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(ix). . . . Plaintiff argues . . . that because Defendant allegedly did not provide a written Acknowledgment and failed to cure the alleged deficiency, she is entitled to summary judgment on her quiet title claim seeking to preclude foreclosure.” The district court announced its decision in a careful ten-page Memorandum Opinion and Order. It explained that “[t]he defect Plaintiff complains of— lack of an Acknowledgment of Fair Market Value—was not in fact a defect.” (Footnote omitted.) The court concluded that “an Acknowledgment of Fair Market Value was fully executed at the time of closing.” Alexander has had ample opportunity to litigate her meritless claim. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons comprehensively stated by the district court. 2