IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10106

Summary Calendar

JAMES E. STEVENS; PATRICIA M. STEVENS,,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, L.L.C.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee 

for the Certificateholders of Bank of America Mortgage 2006-1 Trust Mortgage 

Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-1,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-451

Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James E. and Patricia M. Stevens appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit 

seeking to quiet title to their home in Westlake, Texas. They alleged that the 

foreclosure of their home violated a statute of limitations, that the defendants 

violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that Nationstar and Wells

Fargo Bank had no standing to foreclose on the property. The Stevenses 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 22, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10106 Document: 00514924670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2019
No. 18-10106

2

requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages. The district 

court dismissed the matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as 

barred by res judicata.

Our review is de novo. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 

191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007); Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 

571 (5th Cir. 2005). Dismissal on the pleadings is appropriate if the res 

judicata bar is apparent on the face of the pleadings. See Test Masters, 428 

F.3d at 570 n.2; Kansa Reinsurance Co. v. Cong. Mortg. Corp. of Tex., 20 F.3d 

1362, 1366 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the district court found the Texas state 

court judgment in a prior lawsuit to have preclusive effect, we apply the 

preclusion law of Texas. See In re Pirani, 824 F.3d 483, 491 (5th Cir. 2016).

Although the Stevenses argue that an individualized concept of res 

judicata should apply based on Moore v. Snowball, 81 S.W. 5, 8-10 (Tex. 1904),

the Texas courts have rejected such an approach in favor of a transactional

test, see Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627, 

629-31 (Tex. 1992). The Stevenses additionally argue that their claims arose

only in 2017 when they received new notices of acceleration and a substitute 

trustee sale, and thus could not have been raised in the earlier lawsuit. 

However, their claims rest on the alleged expiration of a statute of limitations, 

which they assert began to run with the first notice of default and intent to 

accelerate the loan in March 2010. As the district court determined, the March 

2010 notice of default and intent to accelerate, the note and deed of trust which 

preceded it, and the notices of default and acceleration which followed it, all 

formed part of a single legal relationship between the parties as to the 

Westlake property. See Weaver v. Tex. Capital Bank, N.A., 660 F.3d 900, 907

(5th Cir. 2011); Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 630. Therefore, res judicata bars the 

Stevenses’ claims. See Weaver, 660 F.3d at 907.

 Case: 18-10106 Document: 00514924670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2019
No. 18-10106

3

The Stevenses’ appeal is without arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The Stevenses are WARNED that future frivolous, repetitive, or 

otherwise abusive filings in this court or in any court subject to this court’s 

jurisdiction will result in the imposition of progressively severe sanctions, 

which may include monetary penalties and restrictions on their ability to file 

pleadings and other documents in this court and in any court subject to this 

court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 

1988). The Stevenses should review any pending appeals and actions and 

move to dismiss any that are frivolous. Their failure to do so will result in the 

imposition of sanctions. This warning supplements and does not displace the 

sanctions orders of the district court.

 Case: 18-10106 Document: 00514924670 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2019