Buckner v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al, No. 3:2015cv00039 - Document 31 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim of Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner and Engle ; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Citimortgage and all claims asserted by Buckner against these Defendants are DISMISSED.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)

Download PDF
Buckner v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al Doc. 31 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 08, 2015 David J. Bradley, Clerk FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION JOE L. BUCKNER, JR. V. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., and BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER and ENGLE, LLP. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. G-15-039 OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Citimortgage and the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner and Engle (Barrett). Extensive settlement negotiations have proven unsuccessful and the Motions are ripe for determination. A very brief synopsis of the facts will suffice. When threatened with a foreclosure sale of his deceased father’s home, Buckner, as administrator of the estate, filed suit in state court alleging that Citimortgage and Barrett had breached the terms of the mortgage by not serving him with notice of the foreclosure sale and seeking to have it enjoined. A temporary restraining order was issued. Citimortgage removed the case to this Court and no sale has ever taken place. No formal opposition to the Motions have been filed, but the Court cannot grant a Motion to Dismiss by default. Issa v. CompUSA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2003). However, in the absence of a response the few relevant facts relied upon by Citimortgage Dockets.Justia.com and Barrett are undisputed. Because the scheduled sale did not take place, Buckner’s claim for an injunction has been rendered moot and must be dismissed. Buckner’s breach of contract claim against Citimortgage would be dismissed on the merits because Texas law does not require actual receipt of the notice of sale by the mortgagor, Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co., 121 S.W. 3d 811, 817 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont 2003, pet. denied), and Buckner’s breach of contract claim against Barrett would also fail on the merits because no contract existed between these Parties. Regardless, this claim has also been rendered moot since, despite any lack of notice, there has been no sale. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Instrument no. 19) of Defendant Citimortgage and the Motion to Dismiss (Instrument no. 7) of Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner and Engle are GRANTED and all claims asserted by Buckner against these Defendants are DISMISSED. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 8th 2 day of December, 2015.

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.