Court Opinion

ID: 9868154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:00:44.831422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:40.477901
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10221        Document: 00516908105             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10221
                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                             September 26, 2023
   Paul Stafford; Telea J. Stafford,                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Wilmington Trust National Association, Not In Its
   Individual Capacity, But Solely as Trustee for MFRA Trust 2014-2; Fay
   Servicing, L.L.C.,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CV-3029
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Paul and Telea Stafford breached a mortgage agreement with
   Wilmington Trust and Fay Servicing (jointly “Wilmington”). The Staffords
   thought Wilmington was also in breach, so they sued to prevent it from
   foreclosing on their home (the first lawsuit). Wilmington countered with a
   breach of contract claim and sought judicial authorization to foreclose. The
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10221      Document: 00516908105            Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/26/2023

                                      No. 23-10221

   parties discussed settlement for six months, but their negotiations fell
   through, and the district court eventually granted summary judgment to
   Wilmington. Before Wilmington could proceed with foreclosure, the
   Staffords brought this second lawsuit asserting eight claims and seeking an
   emergency stay of the foreclosure. The district court denied the stay request,
   but the Staffords pressed on with their other claims. On the Staffords’ telling,
   they reached an agreement with Wilmington to modify their loan agreement
   before the court entered judgment in the first lawsuit, and Wilmington
   breached that agreement by attempting to foreclose.
          The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for
   Wilmington on all of the Staffords’ claims because they are barred by res
   judicata. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, and the
   Staffords timely appealed. We review a district court’s grant of summary
   judgment de novo. See Johnson v. World All. Fin. Corp., 830 F.3d 192, 195 (5th
   Cir. 2016).
          We agree with the res judicata analysis in the report and
   recommendation adopted by the district court. Under our pragmatic
   transactional test for claim identification, the Staffords raise the same claim
   here that they raised in their first lawsuit against Wilmington. See Test
   Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting
   that res judicata “bars the litigation of claims that . . . should have been raised
   in an earlier suit”). All eight of the Staffords’ claims in this lawsuit are
   predicated on the theory that Wilmington’s foreclosure breached an
   agreement the parties reached during the first lawsuit. But assuming there
   was such an agreement, the Staffords should have raised it as a defense in the
   first lawsuit. And since the first lawsuit involved the same parties and ended
   with a final judgment on the merits entered by a court of competent
   jurisdiction, all our res judicata requirements are met. See Ellis v. Amex Life

                                           2
Case: 23-10221     Document: 00516908105       Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/26/2023

                                No. 23-10221

   Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 2000). The Staffords’ claims are
   accordingly foreclosed.
         AFFIRMED.

                                     3