Opinion ID: 3164781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wrongful Foreclosure and Quiet Title

Text: Appellants first argue that Deutsche Bank lacked the capacity to foreclose on their property; thus, they contend that they are entitled to quiet title. This argument is based on the premise that “at the time of foreclosure, Deutsche was neither the holder of the note, the holder of the deed of trust, nor the beneficiary of the deed of trust.” To the contrary—documents in evidence establish Deutsche Bank’s authority to enforce the Deed of Trust: • The Deed of Trust names MERS as beneficiary in the capacity as nominee for Secure Mortgage and its assignees. • The Deed of Trust was filed in the Collin County land records in July 2006. • On January 22, 2011, MERS assigned the Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank. • This assignment was recorded in Collin County on February 8, 2011. • The Deed of Trust grants MERS and its assigns the right “to foreclose and sell the Property.” The district court held that Appellants’ “challenges to the assignment of the Deed of Trust are not enough to state a claim,” citing Wiley v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2013 WL 4779686, -3 (5th Cir. 2013). We agree. Appellants also argue that there are three defects in the notice requirements that support their claim to quiet title: (1) a failure to send Appellants a notice of default and opportunity to cure; (2) a failure to send Appellants a notice of acceleration; and (3) a failure to include the substitute trustee’s address in the notice of sale. These arguments are not persuasive. The first two arguments pertain to the planned April foreclosure—but that sale was postponed until May, and Appellants had notice of the May sale. The third argument is contradicted by the plain terms of the Notice of Substitute 4 Case: 15-40570 Document: 00513317512 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 No. 15-40570 Trustee’s Sale, which lists the names of the Substitute Trustees and a “Return to” address.