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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11359 Document: 00513996365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11359 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IRENE TAWIAH DAGHER; JOHN DAGHER, FILED May 17, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiffs - Appellants v. 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 CORPORATION, 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. PER CURIAM:* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-11359 Document: 00513996365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 No. 16-11359 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 Defendants-Appellees wrongfully foreclosed under the Modification 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. AFFIRMED. 2

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?