### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-10342 Summary Calendar

ARMANDO GONZALEZ; ANGELINA GONZALEZ,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RASC 2004KS12, By and through its servicer-in-fact GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CV-1131

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Armando and Angelina Gonzalez (“the G onzalezes”) sued U.S. Bank National A ssociation (“U.S. Bank”), alleging that U.S. Ba n k f o rfeited all principal and interest o n the loan that i t m a d e t o the Gonzalezes because the loan v iolate d c e rtain provisions of t he Texas Constitution. T he district court granted s ummary judgment and denied t he Gonzalezes’ request for declaratory U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 29, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-10342 Document: 00512455874 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2013No. 13-10342

judgment. We AFFIRM. I. The Gonzalezes refinanced their homestead in 2004. T h e y t ook out a $96,000 loan by executing a n ote in favor of what is now U.S. Bank, and a deed of trust in favor of Mortgage E lectronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee. At the time the loan was executed, the Gonzalezes acknowledged i n a n o ta rize d

a ffid a v it , a s p a r t o f th e h o m e ste a d re fin a n cin g p ro ce ss o u tlin e d in th e T e x a s C o n stitu tio n , t h a t th e fa i r m a rk e t v a l u e o f th e ir h o m e a t t h e tim e w a s $ 1 2 0 ,0 0 0

. T h is “A ck n o w le d g m e n t” w a s b a se d o n a n d i n c o rp o ra t e d a re fe re n ce to a
p ro p e rty a p p r a i sa l th a t w a s p a id fo r b y th e G o n za l e z e s d u rin g th e clo sin g
p ro ce ss. The Gonzalezes a lso received a tax appraisal from the D a lla s C e n tra l A p p ra isa l D istrict (“D C A D T a x A p p ra isa l”) th a t v a lu e d th e ir h o m e a t $ 1 1 0 ,7 5 0 fo r p ro p e rty ta x p u rp o se s
. D e sp ite h a v i n g th e D C A D T a x A p p ra isa l a t th e tim e t h e l o a n clo se d , th e G o n za le ze s d i d n o t d isp u te th a t th e f a ir m a rk e t v a lu e o f th e ir h o m e ste a d w a s $ 1 2 0 ,0 0 0

. In December 2011, U.S. Bank attempted to foreclose o n t h e Gonzalezes’ residence. T h e G o n za le z e s su e d U .S

. B a n k , a lle g in g t h a t th e ir lo a n w a s

e x t e n d e d in v io la tio n o f ce rta in p ro v isio n s o f th e T e x a s C o n stitu tio n , a rt. X V I,

se ctio n 5 0 , a n d th a t th e fo re clo su re b a se d o n th a t lo a n a lso v io la te d th e T e x a s C o n s t i t u tio n
. T h e G o n z a le ze s s o u g h t d a m a g e s a n d a d e cla ra to r y ju d g m e n t

. T h e d i s trict co u rt fo u n d n o v io la tio n s o f th e T e x a s C o n s titu ti o n , a n d g ra n te d

su m m a r y ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f U .S . B a n k o n a ll cla i m s. O n a p p e a l th e G o n za le ze s a rg u e th a t a g e n u in e issu e o f m a te r ia l f a c t

e x i s ts a s to th e fa ir m a r k e t v a lu e o f t h e h o m e i n 2 0 0 4 , a n d th e re fo re t h e d istrict

co u r t e rre d in g ra n tin g s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. T h e G o n za le ze s a lso a p p e a l t h e

2 Case: 13-10342 Document: 00512455874 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2013No. 13-10342

d istrict co u rt’s d e n ia l o f d e cla ra to ry ju d g m e n t. 2
I I. T h e T e x a s C o n stitu t io n a llo w s l ie n s o n a h o m e s te a d in sp e cific situ a tio n s

a n d p u r su a n t to se v e ra l co n d itio n s, in clu d in g th a t e x te n sio n s o f cre d it m a y n o t

e x c e e d 8 0 % o f th e f

a ir m a rk e t v a lu e o f th e h o m e ste a d o n th e d a te t h e e x te n sio n

o f cre d it is m a d e
. T E X

. C O N S T

. a r t. X V I, § 5 0 (a )(6 )(B )

. L e n d e rs m a y co n clu siv e ly

re ly o n a w ritte n a ck n o w le d g m e n t b y th e p ro p e rty o w n e r a s to th e fa ir m a rk e t

v a l u e o f th e h o m e ste a d w h e n it m a tch e s th e v a lu e e s tim a te in a n a p p r a i sa l

p re p a re d in a cco r d a n ce w ith sta te re q u ire m e n ts fo r a n e x t e n s io n o f cre d it. T E X

. C O N S T

. a rt. X V I, § 5 0 (h )

. L e n d e rs m a y n o t re ly o n su ch a n a ck n o w le d g m e n t, h o w e v e r, if th e y h a v e a ctu a l k n o w le d g e th a t t h e fa ir m a r k e t v a lu e in clu d e d is in c o rre ct. T E X

. C O N S T

. a rt. X V I, § 5 0 (h )(2 )

. T h e r e m e d y fo r a v io la tio n is fo rfe itu r e o f a ll p rin cip a l a n d in te re st. T E X

. C O N S T

. a rt. X V I, § 5 0 ( a )(6 )(Q )(x ). T h e G o n za le ze s first a rg u e th a t U .S

. B a n k k n e w t h a t t h e A c k n o w le d g m e n t w a s i n co rre ct a n d u n re lia b le b e ca u se t h e fa ir m a r k e t v a lu e

co n t a in e d in th e A c k n o w le d g m e n t d iffe re d f ro m th e 2 0 0 4 D C A D T a x A p p ra isa l

. H o w e v e r, U .S

. B a n k ’s k n o w le d g e o f th e D C A D T a x A p p ra isa l is n o t e v id e n ce th a t th e fa i r m a rk e t v a lu e in clu d e d in th e A ck n o w l e d g m e n t w a s i n co rre ct b e ca u s e “u n d e r T e x a s la w , ta x v a lu a tio n s a re l e g a lly in s u fficie n t e v i d e n ce o f fa ir-m a r k e t v a l u e .” U n ited S ta tes v
. C u rtis , 6 3 5 F .3 d 7 0 4 , 7 1 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 1 1 );

see Poswalk v
. GMAC Mortg., L.L.C. , 519 F. App’x 884, 886 (2013) (unpublished but persuasive) (observing that in Tex a s a plaintiff c o uld n ot rely o n a tax

2 The G onzalezes did not rais e on ap p eal their argum ent bef ore the d is trict court that the f ees on the loan exceed ed 3% of the loan am ount, in violation of the Texas Co n s titution, article X VI, s ection 50( a) ( 6) ( E )

. Theref ore, we d o not cons id er it.
3 Case: 13-10342 Document: 00512455874 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/29/2013No. 13-10342

valuation to establish a defendant’s k nowledge t hat a loan acknowledgment was incorrect); Thornton v. GMAC Mortg., L.L.C. , No. 1 3-10362, 2013 WL 5540136,
at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2013) (unpublished but persuasive) (observing that under Texas l aw a tax appraisal was not “competent evidence” that a d e fendant knew that a loan acknowledgment was incorrect). T h e G o n za le ze s n e x t a rg u e th a t M r
. G o n za le z’s 2 0 1 2 a ffid a v it t h a t t h e fa ir m a r k e t v a l u e o f h is h o m e in 2 0 0 4 w a s $ 1 1 0 ,7 5 0 cre a te s a fa ct issu e
. T h e d istrict co u r t d i s re g a rd e d t h e 2 0 1 2 a ffid a v i t b e ca u se it d e te rm in e d th a t t h e

a ffid a v it w a s co n clu so ry a n d u n su b sta n t ia t e d . E v e n a ssu m in g a rg u en d o th a t th e d istrict co u r t w a s in co rre ct a n d M r. G o n za le z’s 2 0 1 2 a ffid a v i t co u ld b e so m e

e v i d e n ce o f th e m a rk e t v a lu e o f h is h o m e in 2 0 0 4 , th e a r g u m e n t is u n a v a ilin g

. T h e 2 0 1 2 a ffid a v it d o e s n o t e sta b lish th a t U .S

. B a n k h a d a n y a ctu a l k n o w le d g e th a t M r . G o n za le z v a lu e d h is h o m e a t th a t a m o u n t in 2 0 0 4 a n d is in su fficie n t
to c re a t e a fa ct i ssu e
. See T hornton , No. 13-10362, 2013 WL 5540136, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2013) (unpublished but persuasive) (observing that a plaintiff’s 2012 affidavit was insufficient to establish that the defendant knew a 2007 acknowledgment was i ncorrect); see also Poswalk , 519 F. App’x 884, 8 86 (2013) (unpublished but persuasive) (observing t h a t a plaintiff’s “self-serving” testimony t h a t h e h a d a “feeling” about t he market value of his home was insufficient to establish that the defendant knew a prior acknowledgment was incorrect). F o r th e sa m e re a so n s, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t e rr w h e n it d e c lin e d th e G o n za l e ze s’ re q u e st to issu e a d e cla ra to ry ju d g m e n t. AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 13-10342 Document: 00512455874 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/29/2013