Irene Dagher, et al v. Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co., et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11359 Affirmed] Judge: WED , Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 06/07/2017 [16-11359]
Date Filed: 05/17/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
IRENE TAWIAH DAGHER; JOHN DAGHER,
May 17, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiffs - Appellants
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for
Securitized Asset Backed Receivables L.L.C., Trust 2007-NCI Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NCI; OCWEN FINANCIAL
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CV-3575
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Irene Tawiah Dagher and John Dagher appeal the
district court’s final judgment dismissing their lawsuit against DefendantsAppellees Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsch”) and Ocwen
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 05/17/2017
Financial Corporation (“Ocwen”) on summary judgment. In brief, the Daghers
were parties to an Adjustable Rate Balloon Note in the amount of $185,600.00,
secured by a Deed of Trust covering certain real property. Deutsche was the
mortgagee, and Ocwen was the mortgage servicer. The Daghers entered into a
Modification Agreement in 2012 that required them to make a down payment
and monthly payments thereafter. They made the down payment but failed to
make any of the required monthly payments and therefore defaulted.
Defendants-Appellees foreclosed on the property in early 2013.
The Daghers filed this lawsuit in state court alleging breach of contract,
fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming that
Agreement. Following removal under diversity jurisdiction, DefendantsAppellants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they possessed the
contractual authority to foreclose and had complied with the applicable law
and contractual provisions in doing so. The district court agreed. In a carefully
written memorandum opinion and order, the court explained why DefendantsAppellees’ foreclosure was proper under the undisputed facts and applicable
law and, as a result, why all of the Daghers’ claims must fail as a matter of
law. It therefore dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
Based on our review of the summary judgment record, the applicable
law, the district court’s memorandum opinion and order, and the parties’ briefs
on appeal, we conclude the district court correctly dismissed the Daghers’
baseless claims. Accordingly, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set out by
the district court.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?