Court Opinion

ID: 9951779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 00:02:12.507204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:42.108279
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20138            Document: 59-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                   ____________                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                                          FILED
                                    No. 22-20138                                    March 18, 2024
                                   ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
Linda Moore; Thomas Moore, Jr.,

                                                                Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                          versus

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for
MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2004-OPT2,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; PHH Mortgage
Corporation,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:20-CV-3299
                   ______________________________

Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       In 2020, Linda and Thomas Moore sought declaratory judgment that
their mortgage lenders could not foreclose on their home. The Moores
claimed that the statute of limitations period had run, because the lender ac-
celerated the loan in 2016. The lenders filed for summary judgment and

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20138         Document: 59-1      Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/18/2024

                                  No. 22-20138

responded that subsequent notices sent to the Moores served to reset the
limitations period. The district court granted summary judgment. The
Moores appealed, asserting that the subsequent notices did not reset the lim-
itations period, because Texas law prohibited lenders from sending notes that
simultaneously rescind and reaccelerate a loan.
         Because Texas law is unclear as to whether any time must pass be-
tween a rescission and a reacceleration, we certified the following question to
the Supreme Court of Texas: “May a lender simultaneously rescind a prior
acceleration and re-accelerate a loan under Civil Practice and Remedies Code
Section 16.038?”
         The Texas Supreme Court responded that “a rescission . . . resets
limitations even if it is combined with a notice of reacceleration.” Moore v.
Wells Fargo Bank, et. al., No. 23-0525, 2024 WL 735927 *2 (Tex. Feb. 23,
2024).
         So under Texas law, the lenders’ rescission and reacceleration notices
did reset the statute of limitations period for foreclosure. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.

                                       2