### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50552 Summary Calendar

STEVEN LEE ADAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant , v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S.D.C . No. 1:12

- CV

- 366

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and J OLLY and S OUTHWICK , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff

- Appellant Steven Lee Adams appeals the grant of summ ary judgment to Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) and Recontrust Company, N.A.
in this wrongful foreclosure lawsuit

. For the reasons herein, we affirm the district court’s summary judg ment

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 3, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50552 Document: 00512650900 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2014No. 13

- 50552 I. On July 31, 2006, Adams purchased the property located at 3101 Welton Cliff Drive, Cedar Park, Texas 78613. He did so by executing an $825,000.00 note, secured by a deed of trust granting a first lien against the property to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ( “ MERS ” ), as beneficiary and nominee for the original lender, Countrywide Bank, N.A., and Countrywide’ s successors and assigns. BANA , through its corporate subsidiaries, serviced the note and deed of trust on beh alf of a securit ized trust after August 11, 2006. BANA came to own the deed of trust after BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

— to which the deed was assigned from MERS on May 5, 2010

— merged into BANA effective July 1, 2011. A dams was never directed to make payments to any enti ty other than BANA

. Adams defaulted on the mortgage in May 2009. BANA provided a notice of default the next month. On November 15, 2011, BANA provided a noti ce of acceleration and appointed a substitute trustee the next day . Adams was
served on November 17, 2011 with notice of a foreclosure sale on the property

. The notice was also filed in the Travis County public records

. The sale was to take place on January 3, 2012. On December 19, 2011, BANA assign ed the deed of trust to itself “for the benefit of ” the trust. BANA purchased the property for $978,000.00 at the foreclosure sale “for the benefit of” the trust.
II. Adams brought suit, generally challenging BANA’s authority to foreclose on the property. He also claimed BANA agreed to allow him to condu ct a short sale of the property but foreclosed before the short sale could be completed. 1 Adams asserted causes of action including wrongful foreclosure, violations of the Te xas Debt Collection Act , violations of the Texas Dec ept ive Trade

1 Adams does not re

- advance claims relating to the short sale agreement on appeal. 2 Case: 13-50552 Document: 00512650900 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2014No. 13

- 50552 Practices Act , violations of the Texas Property Code, violations of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, quiet title, breach of contract, and fraud in a real estate transaction. Defendants

- Appellees moved for summary judgment, which th e district court granted. Adams appeals pro se herein. He argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because the record contains genuine issues of material fact. Specifically, he contends that the foreclosure was defective because BANA appointed a sub stitute trustee before it h ad the authority to do so; any assignment from MERS was ineffective; and BANA was required to hold the note to fo reclose the deed of trust. He fu rther argues that Defendants

Appellees filed fraudulent documents with respect to th e foreclosure. Lastly, he argues that the trial court did not address all of the “disputed issues ” he presented below in his response to Defendants

- Appellees’ motion for summary judgment

. III. We review grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the sam e standar d as the district court. Antoine v. First Student Inc. , 713 F.3d 824, 830 (5th Cir. 2013) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ”)

. After considering the parties’ arguments as briefed on appeal, and after reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the trial court’s judgment and reasoning, we AFFIRM the summary judg ment in favor of Defendant s
Appellee s and adopt its analysis in full.

3 Case: 13-50552 Document: 00512650900 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2014