PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER 

CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2002-AM3 

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AM3,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00538

§

v. §

§

LOUANN CRANFORD, §

§

Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter 

Capital I Inc Trust 2002-AM3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-AM3 

(“Plaintiff” or “Deutsche”), complains of Louann Cranford, Defendant, files this Original 

Complaint, and states as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is appearing through the undersigned counsel.

2. Defendant Louann Cranford is an individual and may be served with process at 

her residence, 1301 White Lake Drive, Irving, Texas 75060, or at such other place as she may be 

found. Summons is requested.

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 2

II. PROPERTY

3. This proceeding concerns the following real property and improvements

commonly known as 1301 White Lake Drive, Irving, Texas 75060 more particularly described 

as:

LOT 28, BLOCK “A”, HOWARD U, FREEMAN ADDITION NO. 7, AN ADDITION 

TO THE CITY OF IRVING, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE 

MAP OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 83001, PAGE 2249, OF THE 

MAP RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. (the “Property”).

III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the controversy because there is complete

diversity between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

5. Deutsche is the trustee of a trust. If a trustee possesses “customary powers to hold, 

manage, and dispose of assets,” then it is the real party in interest to a suit. Navarro Sav. Assoc. 

v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464 (1980); see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Nesbitt Bellevue Prop. LLC, 859 F. 

Supp. 2d 602, 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). When a trustee is the real party in interest, its citizenship—

not the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust—controls for purposes of diversity 

jurisdiction. Navarro, 446 U.S. at 464–66. A national banking association is considered a citizen 

of the state in which it is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1348. Its location is determined by the state of its 

main office, as established in the bank’s articles of association. Wachovia Bank, NA v. Schmidt, 

546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006). According to its articles of association, Deutsche Bank has its main 

office in California. See Lewis v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., No. 3:16-CV-133, 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 57025, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017). Therefore, Deutsche Bank is a citizen of 

California for diversity purposes.

6. Defendant Louann Cranford is an individual and citizen of the state of Texas. 

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 3

7. Court has jurisdiction over the controversy under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 because 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. In this suit, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory 

judgment to foreclose on real property. Because the property is valued at more than $75,000.00, 

the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement has been met. When the object of the litigation 

is a mortgage lien that entitles its owner to the full use and enjoyment of the property, the lien 

may be measured by the appraised value of the property, the purchase price, or the outstanding 

principal and interest. Cf. Farkas v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013).

8. When a party seeks declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is measured by 

the value of the object of the litigation, and the value of that right is measured by the losses that 

will follow. Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 256 (5th Cir.1996). Stated differently, the 

amount in controversy is “the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be 

prevented.” Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Lou-Con, Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (5th Cir. 1983)); see also Farkas v. GMAC Mortg., 

LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013).

9. Here, the value of the right to be protected is enforcement of mortgage contract 

through foreclosure. If Plaintiff were to foreclose on the Property, it would be entitled to either 

the full use and possession of it, or the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. But if Plaintiff is unable to 

foreclose, it may be entirely divested of any interest in the Property. Thus, rights to the entirety 

of the property are in question, and the value of the property controls. And the value of the 

Property described below exceeds $75,000.00. The Dallas County Appraisal District values the 

Property at $177,280.00 in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. Therefore, Plaintiff meets the

amount-in-controversy requirement.

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 4

10. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, because this 

suit concerns title to real property located in Dallas County, Texas. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 124, 

1391(b)(2).

IV. FACTS

11. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference for all purposes. 

12. On or about September 25, 2002, Defendant Louann Cranford (“Borrower”)

executed certain Texas Home Equity Adjustable Rate Note in the principal amount of 

$79,200.00 (“Note”), originally payable to Aames Funding Corp., dba Aames Home Loan 

(“Aames”) and bearing interest rate of 7.125% per annum. A true and correct copy of the original 

Note is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

13. Concurrently with the execution of the Note, Borrower executed a Texas Home 

Equity Security Instrument (First Lien) (the “Security Instrument” and together with the Note, 

the “Loan Agreement”), as grantor, granting Aames, its successors and assigns, a security 

interest in the Property. The Security Instrument was recorded in the official public records of 

Dallas County, Texas, under instrument number 2091795. A true and correct copy of the 

Security Instrument is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

14. The Note was indorsed in blank by Aames and there have been no other 

endorsements or allonges. See Exhibit A. Plaintiff has physical possession of the Note and is the 

current owner of the Note. 

15. Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, Borrower is required to pay when due 

the principal and interest on the debt evidenced by the Note, as well as any applicable charges 

and fees under the Note. 

16. The Loan Agreement further provides that should Borrower fail to make 

payments on the Note as they became due and payable or fail to comply with any or all of the 

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 5

covenants and conditions of the Security Instrument, that the lender may enforce the Security 

Instrument by selling the Property according to law and in accordance with the provisions set out 

in the Loan Agreement. 

17. Borrower has failed to make the payments under the terms of the Loan 

Agreement. The Loan Agreement is currently due for the June 1, 2021, payment and all 

subsequent monthly payments. Notice of default and request to cure was mailed to Borrower in 

accordance with the Loan Agreement and with section 51.002 (d) of the Texas Property Code on 

July 20, 2021. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Default is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

The default was not cured, and the maturity of the debt has been accelerated by a Notice of 

Acceleration of Loan Maturity issued on January 27, 2022. A true and correct copy of the Notice 

of Acceleration of Loan Maturity is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

18. Plaintiff brings this suit for declaratory judgment and foreclosure so it may 

enforce its security interest in the Property.

V. CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

18. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference for all purposes. 

19. Plaintiff has standing to enforce the Security Instrument as holder and owner of 

the Note. Hardaway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-1062, 2020 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 63172 at *8 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2020) (citing Everbank v. Seedergy Ventures, Inc., 499 

S.W.3d 534, 541 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.)) Plaintiff requests a declaration 

from this Court that, as the owner and holder of the Note it has standing and is authorized under 

the Security Instrument to enforce the power of sale contained in the Security Instrument through

a non-judicial foreclosure of the Property.

20. Plaintiff has been forced to hire the undersigned attorneys to seek a declaratory 

judgment as a result of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Loan Agreement. Plaintiff is 

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 6

therefore entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees in this action, both through trial and in the 

event of a subsequent appeal, as provided by the Security Instrument signed by the Defendant. 

Plaintiff requests that the award of attorney’s fees be made not as a money judgment against the 

Defendant, but as further obligation under the subject Note and Security Instrument. 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: FORECLOSURE

21. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference for all purposes.

22. As the current owner and holder of the Note who has the right to enforce the Note 

and the Security Instrument, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for foreclosure against Borrower.

The Loan Agreement is a contract, and Plaintiff fully performed its obligations under it. 

Borrower, however, did not comply with the Loan Agreement by failing to substantially perform 

material obligations required under its terms (principally, the payment of amounts due under the 

contract, among others). Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a judgment allowing it to foreclose on the

Property in accordance with the Security Instrument and Texas Property Code § 51.002.

23. Plaintiff has been forced to hire the undersigned attorneys to seek a declaratory 

judgment as a result of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Loan Agreement. Plaintiff is 

therefore entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees in this action, both through trial and in the 

event of a subsequent appeal, as provided by the Security Instrument signed by the Defendant. 

Plaintiff requests that the award of attorney’s fees be made not as a money judgment against the 

Defendant, but as further obligation under the subject Note and Security Instrument.

VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

24. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference for all purposes.

25. All conditions precedent for foreclosure have been performed or have occurred, 

and any other action required under applicable law and the loan agreement, contract, or lien 

sought to be foreclosed has been performed.

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

MWZM: 19-000031-670 Page 7

IX. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendant Louann

Cranford be summoned to appear and answer, and that upon final hearing, the Court enter 

judgment granting declaring that (1) Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, (2) Borrower 

is in default on her obligations on the Loan Agreement, (3) Plaintiff as the owner and holder of 

the Note has standing and is authorized to enforce the power of sale through non-judicial 

foreclosure of the Property pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and Texas Property 

Code § 51.002, or alternatively, by judicial foreclosure. Plaintiff further requests attorneys’ fees 

and costs of suit, not as a money a judgment against Defendant, but as further obligation under 

the subject Note and Security Instrument, and all other relief, in law and in equity, to which 

Plaintiff is entitled.

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Mark Cronenwett 

MARK D. CRONENWETT

Texas Bar No. 00787303

mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

VIVIAN N. LOPEZ

Of Counsel

State Bar No. PR20818

vlopez@mwzmlaw.com

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C.

14160 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 900

Dallas, Texas 75254

Telephone: 214-635-2650

Facsimile: 214-635-2686

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 3:22-cv-00538-E Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7