Aaron Holt, as Trustee for Forestwood Trust v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Plaintiff's claims against defendant be, and are hereby, dismissed.. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 4/20/2016) (npk)

U.S. O!STJ:iCT COLIU
NORHII;:Ri\ D!SfCI,iCYOFTEX·\S

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FP );~ D
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX S
~---..~
FORT WORTH DIVISION
AARON HOLT, AS TRUSTEE FOR
FORESTWOOD TRUST,

j

§

APR 2 ~~~

CJ FRK, lJ.S. Dis-TRiCT COI!HT

§

Plaintiff,

§

Jy - - - - : ; - - - - llrputr

§
§

vs.

§

NO. 4:16-CV-196-A

§

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST
FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF
MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I
INC. TRUST 2004-HE2, MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2004-HE2,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee, in Trust for the
Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust
2004-HE2, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-HE2, to
dismiss the above-captioned action. The court, having considered
the motion,

1

the record, and applicable authorities, finds that

the motion to dismiss should be granted.

1

On March 11, 2016, the court's standing order was entered reminding parties that a response to
a motion and brief must be filed within twenty-one days from the date the motion is filed in compliance
with Local Rule LR 7.1(e). Doc. 3. To date, plaintiff, Aaron Holt, as Trustee for Forestwood Trust, has
filed no response. The "Doc. _" references are to the numbers assigned to the referenced documents on
the docket of this case, No. 4:16-CV-196-A.

I .

Background
Plaintiff, Aaron Holt, as Trustee for Forestwood Trust,
initiated this action on February 26, 2016, by filing an original
petition in the 96th Judicial District of Tarrant County, Texas.
On March 11, 2016, defendant removed the action to federal court
on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. On March
18, 2016, defendant filed the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's
petition seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
against defendants attempted foreclosure on a property in which
plaintiff claims an interest.
II.

The Motion to Dismiss
Defendant seeks dismissal of plaintiff's claims for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant
claims that plaintiff pleads no underlying cause of action upon
which to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. In addition, to
the extent that plaintiff has attempted to assert a cause of
action for an equitable right of redemption, plaintiff has failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2

III.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides, in a general way, the applicable federal standard of
pleading. It requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief," FED. R. Crv. P. 8 (a) (2),

"in order to give the defendant

fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
ellipsis omitted) .

(internal quotation marks and

Although a complaint need not contain

detailed factual allegations, the "showing" contemplated by Rule
8 requires the plaintiff to do more than simply allege legal
conclusions or recite the elements of a cause of action. Id. at
555, 578 n.3.

Thus, while a court must accept all of the factual

allegations in the complaint as true, it need not credit bare
legal conclusions that are unsupported by any factual
underpinnings. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 ("While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must
be supported by factual allegations.").
Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, the facts pleaded must allow the court to infer
that plaintiff's right to relief is plausible. Id. at 678.

To

allege a plausible right to relief, the facts pleaded must
suggest liability; allegations that are merely consistent with

3

unlawful conduct are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 566-69.
"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief . . .

[is] a context-specific task that requires the

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

IV.
Application of Law to Facts
After a study of plaintiff's first amended petition filed in
state court and a review of the applicable legal authorities, the
court has concluded that none of the relief sought by plaintiff
would survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff's claims against
defendant are wholly conclusory.
1.

Equitable Right of Redemption

The court questions whether plaintiff is even attempting to
assert a claim for equitable right of redemption, but, in an
abundance of caution, the court reviews the first amended
petition as if plaintiff has attempted to assert a claim for
equitable right of redemption. A right of redemption is a right
to pay the full amount owed on a mortgage to redeem a property
subject to foreclosure within a reasonable time of default. Scott
v. Dorothy B. Schneider Estate Tr., 783 S.W.3d 26, 28

(Tex. App.-

Austin, 1990, no writ). To state a claim for equitable right of
redemption, plaintiff must show it: "(1) has an equitable or

4

legal right to the property;

(2) based on the interest in the

property, would suffer a loss from foreclosure; and (3) is ready,
able or willing to redeem the propert[y]

in controversy by paying

off the amount of valid and subsisting liens to which the
propert[y]

[is] subject." 330 Cedron Tr. v. Citimortgage, Inc.,

No. SA-14-CV-933-XR, 2015 WL 1566058, at *3
2015)

(citing Scott, 783 S.W.3d at 28)

(W.D. Tex. Apr. 8,

(internal quotation

omitted) . The party seeking to exercise the right of redemption
must also be willing to pay the expenses that the mortgagee has
expended in association with the default. Id.
Plaintiff merely states that it is able, willing and ready
to satisfy encumbrances. Doc. 1 at Ex. 3 at 3. Plaintiff provides
no information or facts regarding

~the

value of such lien, how

[it] would pay, its own net worth or assets, etc." See 330 Cedron
Trust, No. SA-14-CV-933-XR, 2015 WL 1566058, at *3. Plaintiff
also provides no information indicating it is willing to pay the
expenses that defendant has incurred in association with the
default. Thus, based on the conclusory allegations pleaded the
court cannot infer that plaintiff's right to relief is plausible.
See Iqbal at 678.
2.

Request for Declaratory Relief

Plaintiff also seeks a number of declarations as to the
parties' rights and obligations. A declaratory judgment action
requires the parties to litigate some underlying claim or cause

5

of action. The declaratory judgment is not itself a cause of
action, only a form of relief the court may grant. See Collin
Cnty., Tex. v. Homeowners Ass'n for Values Essential to
Neighborhoods,

(HAVEN), 915 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1990). Here,

the court has dismissed the only underlying claim or cause of
action potentially stated by plaintiff, leaving nothing on which
to base plaintiff's request for declaratory relief.
3.

Request for Injunctive Relief

Because the court has dismissed plaintiff's only potential
underlying claim or cause of action, there is nothing on which to
base plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.

v.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that the motion to dismiss of defendant be,
and is hereby, granted, and that plaintiff's claims against
defendant be, and are hereby, dismissed.
SIGNED April 20, 2016.

I

I

I

I

6