Court Opinion

ID: 9366231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:03:41.09471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.908229
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20003     Document: 00516420476         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                       August 4, 2022
                                  No. 22-20003
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   Patrick De Haan; Claudia De Haan,

                                                           Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                       versus

   Select Portfolio Servicing, Incorporated,

                                                           Defendant—Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:21-CV-473

   Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges..
   Per Curiam:*
          Patrick and Claudia De Haan sued their loan service provider, Select
   Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), alleging violations of the Texas Fair Debt
   Collection Practices Act (TFDCPA) and common law “debt collection
   practices.” Specifically, the De Haans asserted that SPS employed unfair
   debt collecting practices under sections 392.303(a)(2), 392.304(a)(8), and

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-20003        Document: 00516420476              Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                         No. 22-20003

   392.304(a)(19) of the Texas Finance Code. The district court granted
   summary judgment for SPS. We affirm.
                                               I.
           In 2004, the De Haans purchased a house in The Woodlands, Texas.
   In 2005, the De Haans executed a promissory note, borrowing $275,000
   payable to the lender, Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. The De Haans also
   executed a deed of trust in favor of Accredited Home Lenders. In 2012, in
   default on their payment obligations, the De Haans executed a modification
   to their loan. 1 They executed a second loan modification in 2014, when they
   were again in default, granting SPS the authority to act on behalf of
   Accredited Home Lenders for servicing the loan. The agreement provided
   that SPS retained the right to return any payment or partial payment
   insufficient to bring the loan current. It also required that “[i]f foreclosure
   ha[d] been initiated,” the De Haans were to make payments using “certified
   funds,” which included “a bank wire, cashier’s bank check, attorney trust
   account check, title or escrow company check, or Western Union Quick
   Collect.”
           By August 2019, the De Haans were again in default on the loan. They
   owed $12,881.40, and had been delinquent for over 100 days, when SPS
   notified them that they must pay the amount due by September 1, 2019, in
   order to cure the default. The De Haans mailed SPS a personal check in the
   amount of $12.881.40, after the September 1 due date. Because the De Haans
   were late, they incurred additional late fees, such that their $12,881.40
   payment no longer cured the default.

           1
            We refer hereafter to the note, deed of trust, and modification agreements as “the
   loan” unless otherwise specified.

                                               2
Case: 22-20003       Document: 00516420476            Page: 3      Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                       No. 22-20003

          On September 26, 2019, SPS’s attorney sent a notice to the De Haans
   stating that foreclosure had been initiated. On October 1, 2019, SPS notified
   the De Haans that their payment had been rejected. Shortly thereafter, the
   De Haans attempted to make a payment of $12,882.00 via online bill
   payment. But SPS rejected that payment as well because it was insufficient
   to cure the default 2 and was not in the form of certified funds, as required by
   the loan agreement. Adding further delinquent payments and late fees, SPS
   sent another notice to the De Haans on November 13, 2019, that payment of
   $22,740.48 was due by November 27, 2019, payable in certified funds. SPS
   did not receive payment, so it initiated foreclosure proceedings.
          In response, the De Haans filed suit against SPS, alleging that SPS
   violated statutory and common law debt collection requirements. The De
   Haans specifically contended that SPS charged fees that were not authorized,
   misrepresented the amount owed, failed to maintain a proper accounting, and
   failed to apply payments, causing their principal loan balance to increase in
   violation of the Texas Finance Code.            See Tex. Fin. Code Ann.
   §§ 392.303(a)(2), 392.304(a)(8), 392.304(a)(19).            After discovery, SPS
   moved for summary judgment, contending that the De Haans had failed to
   produce evidence that established their claims or that their payments should
   have been accepted under the loan’s terms. The district court granted SPS’s
   motion, and the De Haans appealed.
                                            II.
          We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
   Renfroe v. Parker, 974 F.3d 594, 599 (5th Cir. 2020). Summary judgment is
   appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

          2
            By then, the De Haans had also failed to pay their September and October 2019
   loan payments, increasing their overdue balance to $19,778.85.

                                             3
Case: 22-20003      Document: 00516420476          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 22-20003

   material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the
   evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-
   moving party.” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (quotation omitted). “All evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to
   the nonmoving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in that party’s
   favor.” Id. at 328–29 (citation omitted).
                                        III.
          On appeal, the De Haans first contend that section 51.002 of the Texas
   Property Code does not require certified funds to cure a mortgage default.
   But the De Haans did not raise this argument before the district court, and
   thus it is forfeited. See Thomas v. Ameritas Life Ins. Corp., 34 F.4th 395, 402
   (5th Cir. 2022). Even if not, section 51.002 is inapplicable. That statute
   governs the sale of property at public auction, which does not pertain to
   whether the De Haans were required to cure default via payment with
   certified funds under the terms of their loan. Cf. Tex. Prop. Code Ann.
   § 51.002.
          Next, the De Haans contend that their attempted online bill payment
   constituted payment by certified funds. Enforcing the unambiguous terms of
   the loan as written, see Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d
   118, 121 (Tex. 1996), we disagree with the De Haans. According to the loan,
   “[c]ertified funds include[] a bank wire, cashier’s bank check, attorney trust
   account check, title or escrow company check, or Western Union Quick
   Collect.”     While the De Haans assert that “there are almost no
   distinguishable differences between the online bill payment and a cashier’s
   check,” they point to no language in the loan documents or record evidence
   to support their position. And even if the De Haans’ attempted online
   payment qualified as certified funds, that payment was also rejected because

                                         4
Case: 22-20003     Document: 00516420476          Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                   No. 22-20003

   the amount was insufficient to cure the default. By contrast, SPS acted within
   the bounds of the loan’s terms in rejecting the De Haans’ payments, online
   or otherwise.
          Because we discern no genuine issue of material fact, the district
   court’s summary judgment is
                                                                 AFFIRMED.

                                         5