Schaffer v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 56 Report and Recommendations, 53 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by The Bank of New York Mellon, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.. Defendants Opposed Motion for Atto rneys Fees (Dkt. 53) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants their costs in the amount of $1,421.17 and attorneys fees in the amount of $65, 976.00 within ninety (90) days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 9/30/17. (cm, ) Modified on 10/2/2017 (cm, ).

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

LILLY HELENE SCHAFFER,
Plaintiff,

v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. AND THE
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS
TRUSTEE FOR CWMBS 2005-J4,
Defendants.

§
§
§ Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00518
§ (Judge Mazzant/Judge Johnson)
§
§
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On September 1, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 56) was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Attorneys’
Fees (Dkt. 53) be granted. Having received the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 56), having
considered Plaintiff’s timely filed objections (Dkt. 58), and having conducted a de novo review,
the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct,
and the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report (Dkt. 56) as the findings and conclusions
of the Court.
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2017, the District Court issued a Memorandum Adopting Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge granting in part and denying in part
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 38). See Dkt. 50. The District Court ordered

that all claims against SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for
CWMBS 2005-14 (“Defendants”), be dismissed with prejudice, and that Defendants were entitled
to possession of the Property and should be granted declaratory relief. See id. at 12. The District
Court ordered that Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees was denied without prejudice,
instructing Defendants that if they wished to seek attorneys’ fees, they should submit the request
in a separate motion, with documentation of the relevant costs. See id.
On August 7, 2017, Defendants filed the present Opposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. See
Dkt. 53. On August 21, 2017, Lilly Helene Schaffer (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response. See Dkt. 54.
On September 1, 2017, the Report and Recommendation granting attorneys’ fees was entered (Dkt
56). On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation was filed
(Dkt. 58).
ANALYSIS
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred for the following reasons: (1) Defendants should
not be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs because the Report and Recommendation did not address
all of Plaintiff’s arguments; (2) the Report and Recommendation’s analysis of the equities in this
case is one-sided and fails to recognize Plaintiff’s $1,100.00 monthly payments and equity that
have been obtained by Defendants; and (3) the award of attorneys’ fees would be inequitable and
unreasonable. (Dkt. 58).

2

Objection 1: Entitlement to Attorney Fees
Plaintiff argues the Report and Recommendation failed to address her argument in regard
to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act not providing attorneys’ fees. See Dkt. 58 at 3. Plaintiff
also argues the Report and Recommendation never addressed the issue that the Deed of Trust is
not a written lease that supports attorneys’ fees in Defendants’ forcible detainer counterclaim. See
Dkt. 58 at 3-4. The Report and Recommendation, however, found Defendants were entitled to
attorneys’ fees under the Federal Housing Act (“FHA”). See Dkt. 56 at 5. As a result, it did not
address the other avenues pursuant to which Defendants were seeking fees. Thus, the Court
overrules this objection.
Objection 2: Equities
Plaintiff argues the equities in this case are one-sided. See Dkt. 58 at 4. Specifically,
Plaintiff contends the Report and Recommendation failed to recognize Plaintiff’s $1,100.00
monthly payments and equity that have been obtained by Defendants. See id. This argument is
not relevant to Defendants’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the FHA; nor is it relevant to the
amount of fees Defendants should be awarded. Accordingly, the Court overrules this objection.
Objection 3: Equity and Reasonableness
Plaintiff argues an award of attorneys’ fees and costs would be inequitable and
unreasonable under this factual scenario. See Dkt. 58 at 5-6. Plaintiff argues she is suffering from
an incurable disease, is no longer able to function as a physician, and receives only her pension
and social security. See Dkt. 58 at 5. The Report and Recommendation, however, addressed this
issue when it stated, “Plaintiff’s request for the Court to exercise its discretion and deny
Defendants’ Motion does not fall upon deaf ears. However, as Plaintiff notes, the Court found
Plaintiff has been unable to make payments since 2013, and yet has been living at the property at

3

issue, valued at approximately $337, 801.70.” See Dkt. 56 at 5. Accordingly, this objection is
overruled.
CONCLUSION
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, having considered each
of Plaintiff’s timely filed objections (Dkt. 58), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts
the Magistrate Judge’s report (Dkt. 56) as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt.
53) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants their costs in the amount of $1,421.17 and
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $65, 976.00 within ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2017.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4