United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-40091

Summary Calendar

____________

Eric Brown; Rosalind A. Brown, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants, 

versus

PennyMac Loan Services, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:23-CV-377

______________________________

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Homeowners Eric and Rosalind Brown, pro se, sued their mortgage 

lender, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, under a novel legal argument to 

declare their home free and clear of its mortgage. The district court 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 13, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-40091 Document: 28-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2024
No. 24-40091

2

dismissed the Browns’ lawsuit for failing to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted, which they now appeal. We AFFIRM.

I.

The Browns purchased their home with a $377,240.00 loan from 

PennyMac in April 2021. PennyMac secured the mortgage loan through a 

signed promissory note and a deed of trust. PennyMac, however, sold that 

promissory note to JP Morgan, thus separating the note from the deed of 

trust, which PennyMac retained.

The Browns filed suit against PennyMac in October 2021. The 

Browns argued that “splitting” the note and deed of trust ended their 

obligation to pay their mortgage, and they now claim to own their home free 

and clear. Specifically, the Browns brought claims for breach of contract and 

slander of title. They also sought declaratory relief and to quiet title. 

The district court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

for failing to state a claim. The Browns now appeal that dismissal. 

II.

We review de novo whether a complaint pleads a claim that is 

plausible on its face under Rule 12(b)(6). Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637 

(5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Bell v. 

Eagle Mountain Saginaw Indep. Sch. Dist., 27 F.4th 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2022) 

(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

Case: 24-40091 Document: 28-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2024
No. 24-40091

3

III.

On appeal, the Browns argue that the district court erred by granting 

PennyMac’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Browns argue that 

PennyMac violated the terms of the deed of trust by splitting the mortgage 

from the note, which rendered the deed of trust unenforceable.

This court, however, has previously rejected this “split-the-note” 

theory. Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 255-56 

(5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the Browns do not point to any contractual 

language in the deed of trust that otherwise excuses payment. In short, the 

Browns have not pleaded a basis to show that their mortgage obligation has 

been satisfied. It follows that their claims to quiet title, slander of title, and 

declaratory relief are meritless.

IV.

We thus conclude: the district court properly dismissed the Browns’ 

lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted, and accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the 

case is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-40091 Document: 28-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2024