Court Opinion

ID: 9786688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:39.845501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:23.025821
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50930       Document: 00516878742           Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/30/2023

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

                                            FILED
                                  ____________
                                                                         August 30, 2023
                                   No. 22-50930                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                 Clerk

   PHH Mortgage Corporation, Successor by Merger to
   Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

                                               Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

                                         versus

   Old Republic National Title Insurance Company,

                                             Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

                    ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:21-CV-133
                   ______________________________

   Before Duncan and Wilson, Circuit Judges, and Mazzant, District
   Judge. ∗
   Amos L. Mazzant, District Judge:
          A basic tenet of civil procedure states that, as the master of its
   complaint, a plaintiff has the right to choose the parties to a lawsuit. A
   notable exception to this principle comes from Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 19, which allows federal courts to dismiss a case in the absence of

          ∗
             United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by
   designation.
Case: 22-50930      Document: 00516878742           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 22-50930

   “required” parties—those whose presence is required to protect their
   interests or to protect the existing parties from duplicative litigation or
   inconsistent obligations. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the
   district court abused its discretion when it sua sponte determined that parties
   absent from this breach of contract action are required under Rule 19 and
   dismissed the case accordingly. Because we conclude that the district court
   incorrectly determined that third parties are “required” here, and because it
   failed to consider whether this case could proceed in the absence of those
   parties, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing this case and remand
   for further proceedings.
                                          I.

                                          A.
          This breach of contract action stems from a title insurance dispute.
   PHH Mortgage Corporation (PHH) is the successor-in-interest to Ocwen
   Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen). Ocwen was the holder of a mortgage note,
   which was secured by a lien on real property purportedly owned by the
   borrowers in Ector County, Texas. The parties to the loan transaction
   executed the note and the lien on November 25, 2009, and the lien was
   evidenced by a deed of trust.1 The deed of trust, which was recorded in the
   Ector County property records, described the property encumbered by the
   lien as: “The South One-Half (S/2) of Lot 10, Block 14, Westover Acres, 3rd
   Filing, A Subdivision of Ector County, Texas, According to the Map or Plat
   of Record in Volume 5, Page 18, Plat Records of Ector County, Texas” (the
   Entire Southern Tract).
          In connection with the loan transaction, Old Republic National Title
   Insurance Company (Old Republic) issued a title insurance policy to the

          1
             The original lender and mortgage holder was AMCAP Mortgage, LTD. The
   loan was later assigned to Ocwen.

                                           2
Case: 22-50930       Document: 00516878742          Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 22-50930

   mortgage holder (the Policy). The Policy described the Entire Southern
   Tract as the property encumbered by the lien and insured the mortgage
   holder and its successors-in-interest against losses caused by defects in title.
          When the borrowers defaulted, Ocwen foreclosed the lien and
   acquired the property through a foreclosure sale in January 2018. Ocwen
   then recorded a substitute trustee’s deed reflecting its title to the Entire
   Southern Tract.
          After foreclosure, however, Ocwen discovered discrepancies in the
   title to the Entire Southern Tract. The borrowers under the mortgage note
   had purportedly received the Entire Southern Tract through a gift warranty
   deed on October 14, 2009. Less than a month later, and shortly before the
   loan transaction closed, the grantors recorded a second gift warranty deed
   that altered the description in the first warranty deed and conveyed to the
   borrowers only a .229-acre portion of the Entire Southern Tract. Because of
   these discrepancies, Ocwen—and later PHH—came to believe that it had
   acquired marketable title to only the .229-acre tract and not the larger Entire
   Southern Tract.
          And so, on October 1, 2020, PHH sent written notice of a claim to Old
   Republic and sought to recover the value of the loss under the Policy. Old
   Republic denied PHH’s claim.
                                          B.
          In July 2021, PHH filed suit against Old Republic in the United States
   District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging a single cause of
   action for breach of contract. After the close of discovery, Old Republic filed
   a motion for summary judgment, arguing that PHH’s breach of contract
   claim failed as a matter of law because there was no defect in title to the Entire
   Southern Tract and because PHH failed to point to any evidence of
   compensable damages under the Policy. PHH filed its own motion for

                                           3
Case: 22-50930      Document: 00516878742           Page: 4     Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 22-50930

   summary judgment, arguing that Old Republic breached the terms of the
   Policy by refusing to compensate PHH for its losses.
          On September 15, 2022, the district court denied the parties’ cross-
   motions for summary judgment without reaching the merits of either motion.
   Rather, the district court construed the parties’ claims as a request for a
   declaration of title in the Entire Southern Tract. Reasoning that Texas law
   requires such claims to be brought as a trespass-to-try title action, the district
   court effectively recast this case from one centered around an insurance
   contract to one centered around title to real property. On this basis, the
   district court determined that any person claiming an interest in the Entire
   Southern Tract is a required party under Rule 19. And, because that required
   party is absent, the district court sua sponte dismissed the case under Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). Both parties filed timely notices of appeal
   in October 2022.
                                          II.
          We review a district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to join an
   indispensable party under Rule 19 for abuse of discretion. HS Res., Inc. v.
   Wingate, 327 F.3d 432, 438 (5th Cir. 2003). A district court abuses its
   discretion when its ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law.” Hood
   ex rel. Miss. v. City of Memphis, 570 F.3d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting
   Chaves v. M/V Medina Star, 47 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1995). Likewise, a
   district court abuses its discretion when it does not consider “a relevant
   factor that should have been given significant weight.” In re Volkswagen of
   Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 n.4 (5th Cir. 2008) (“An abuse of discretion . . .
   can occur . . . when a relevant factor that should have been given significant
   weight is not considered”).

                                           4
Case: 22-50930      Document: 00516878742            Page: 5   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                      No. 22-50930

                                          III.
          This appeal presents the court with two issues. First, both parties
   contend that the district court abused its discretion when it sua sponte
   dismissed this case for failure to join a required party. For the reasons
   explained below, we agree with the parties, and conclude that the district
   court abused its discretion when it dismissed this case, both by improperly
   concluding that a “required” party is absent from this case under Rule 19(a)
   and by failing to consider the practical and equitable factors mandated by
   Rule 19(b).
          Second, the parties disagree on the appropriate course of action
   following the vacatur of the district court’s order dismissing this case. PHH
   argues that, because the district court did not reach the parties’ cross-
   motions for summary judgment below, the court should remand this case to
   allow the district court to consider those motions in the first instance. On the
   other hand, Old Republic argues that the court should reach the merits of the
   parties’ cross-motions in the interests of economy and efficiency. Because
   no exceptional circumstances compel the court to depart from its general rule
   against reaching the merits of an issue not passed on by the district court, we
   will remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.
                                          IV.
          We turn first to the parties’ contention that the district court abused
   its discretion by dismissing this case for failure to join a “necessary party.”
   Both parties argue that the district court misapplied Rule 19 when it decided
   to dismiss this case sua sponte.
          In a diversity case like this one, the issue of joinder is governed by
   federal law. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102,
   125 n.22 (1968). That said, the court may look to state law to determine the
   interests of the parties and those of potential parties. Id. (“To be sure, state-

                                           5
Case: 22-50930       Document: 00516878742           Page: 6     Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                      No. 22-50930

   law questions may arise in determining what interest the outsider actually has
   . . . but the ultimate question whether, given those state-defined interests, a
   federal court may proceed without the outsider is a federal matter.”)
   (alterations to original). Rule 12(b)(7) provides the mechanism for dismissal
   of an action for “failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
   12(b)(7). Rule 19, in turn, sets out the framework for the joinder of “required
   parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
          Rule 19 “requires a two-step inquiry.” Hood, 570 F.3d at 628. To
   begin, a court must determine whether a party is “required” under Rule
   19(a); that is, whether the party should be joined if feasible. Id. If the
   required party cannot be joined without destroying subject-matter
   jurisdiction, the court must then turn to Rule 19(b) to determine whether that
   party is indispensable; that is, “whether litigation can be properly pursued
   without the absent party.” Id. at 629 (citing HS Res., 327 F.3d at 439).
          Under Rule 19(a), a party is required if:
          (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete
          relief among existing parties; or

          (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the
          action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the
          person’s absence may:

                  (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s
                  ability to protect the interest; or

                  (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of
                  incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
                  obligations because of the interest.
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1).

                                            6
Case: 22-50930        Document: 00516878742           Page: 7   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                       No. 22-50930

             In addition, Rule 19(b) provides four non-exhaustive factors that
   “must be examined in each case to determine whether, in equity and good
   conscience, the court should proceed without a party whose absence from
   the litigation is compelled.” Patterson, 390 U.S. at 109 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
   19(b)).
             These factors are:
             (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s
             absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;

             (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or
             avoided by:

                (A) protective provisions in the judgment;

                (B) shaping the relief; or

                (C) other measures;

             (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence
             would be adequate; and

             (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the
             action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b).
             The Rule 19 framework ultimately requires a fact-based analysis that
   is controlled by “pragmatic concerns,” with a particular emphasis on the
   effect on the parties and on the litigation. Smith v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
   Co., 633 F.2d 401, 405 (5th Cir. 1980). To this end, it is not enough to dismiss
   a case merely because an absent party is required under Rule 19(a); the absent
   party must also be found, after an examination of the Rule 19(b) factors, to be
   indispensable to the pending litigation. Santiago v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 768

                                             7
Case: 22-50930         Document: 00516878742               Page: 8      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                          No. 22-50930

   F. App’x 1000, 1005 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citing Patterson, 390 U.S.
   at 118–19). The reasoning behind the two-pronged requirement for dismissal
   under Rule 19 is simple: “a court does not know whether a particular person
   is ‘indispensable’ until it [has] examined the situation to determine whether
   it can proceed without him.” Patterson, 390 U.S. at 119.
           So, the question before the court is whether the district court erred
   when it dismissed this case based solely on its finding that a “required party”
   is absent. 2 Applying Rule 19’s two-pronged framework for the joinder of
   required parties here, the court concludes that the district court’s decision
   fails at both prongs of the analysis.
                                                A.

           Rule 19(a) provides two tests for determining whether a party is
   required. Rajet Aeroservicios S.A. de C.V. v. Castillo Cervantes, 801 F. App’x
   239, 246 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). As for the first Rule 19(a) test, the
   district court did not conclude—and nothing before the court suggests that—
   a third party’s absence impedes the court’s ability to “accord complete relief
   among existing parties.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A).
           Rather, the district court dismissed this case based on its conclusion
   that “although disguised as a breach of contract case, this case should be a
   trespass-to-try-title” action. More specifically, the district court concluded
   that the parties seek a judgment as to title in the Entire Southern Tract, and
   that such a judgment, if rendered in the absence of anyone claiming an

           2
             In its order dismissing this case, the district court used the terms “required
   party” and “necessary party” interchangeably. Rule 19(a) formerly described required
   parties as “necessary” parties. Republic of Phil. v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 859 (2008).
   Although Rule 19(a) no longer uses this description, the term “necessary party” remains
   as a term of art that refers to Rule 19(a). Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596, 602–03 (2005)
   (“Though the Rule no longer describes such parties as ‘necessary,’ ‘necessary party’ is a
   term of art whose meaning parallels Rule 19(a)’s requirements.”).

                                                 8
Case: 22-50930      Document: 00516878742           Page: 9    Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 22-50930

   interest in that property, would “impair or impede” that person’s ability to
   protect their interests and potentially cause conflicting judgments. Although
   it makes no explicit reference to Rule 19(a), the district court’s analysis
   invokes the second Rule 19(a) test, which asks (1) whether a third party
   “claims an interest relating to the subject of an action” and (2) whether that
   third party’s interest “as a practical matter” will be impaired or impeded if
   the third party is excluded from the existing suit, or whether the third party’s
   absence will leave the existing parties at risk of inconsistent obligations. Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i)–(ii); Rajet, 801 F. App’x at 246. Applying that test
   here, the district court concluded that “any person claiming a property
   interest in [the Entire Southern Tract] is a required party under Rule 19.”
          But the district court’s Rule 19(a) analysis is rooted in a
   misunderstanding of Texas law. Contrary to the district court’s conclusion
   below, Texas law draws a sharp distinction between a breach of contract
   action against a title insurance company and a trespass-to-try-title action.
   Am. Sav. & Loan Assoc. of Hous. v. Musick, 531 S.W.2d 581, 588–89 (Tex. 1975).
   A breach of contract action against a title insurance company is “based on a
   contractual right that exists separate and distinct from any ﬁnal determination
   of ownership of the property.” Id. at 589. Conversely, trespass-to-try-title is
   a statutory cause of action, complete with unique pleading and proof
   requirements, intended to determine title to real property. See Tex. Prop.
   Code. Ann. § 22.001(a). The trespass-to-try-title statute applies only when
   “the claimant is seeking to establish or obtain the claimant’s ownership or
   possessory right in the land at issue.” Lance v. Robinson, 543 S.W.3d 723, 736
   (Tex. 2018). In short, a breach of contract claim against a title insurance
   company “invokes the insurer’s obligation to pay the claim or defend title to
   the property, and this claim is separate and distinct from the claim of
   ownership.” Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, Inc. v. Cook

                                          9
Case: 22-50930       Document: 00516878742              Page: 10      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                         No. 22-50930

   Paint & Varnish, 82 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Musick, 531 S.W.2d at
   588).
           Of course, resolving a breach of contract claim against a title insurance
   company may require a court to make a declaration that impacts a title’s
   validity. Yet Texas courts have expressed doubt that “the legislature intended
   for the trespass-to-try title statute to displace or subsume every statutory or
   common law claim having such an impact.” See Florey v. Estate of McConnell,
   212 S.W.3d 439, 449 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied) (cleaned up).
   After all, it would be a “substantial reduction” of the title insurance
   contract’s beneﬁt to require the insured to “bear his detriment until the
   owner of the superior title is found and sued to judgment . . . .” S. Title Guar.
   Co., Inc. v. Prendergast, 494 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Tex. 1973); see also Cook Paint &
   Varnish, 82 F.3d at 117 (noting that “[t]he loss covered by the title insurance,
   the inability to obtain title to the property, was separate from the loss of title
   and continued to exist until title was ﬁnally established.”).
           At its core, this case is a contractual dispute between PHH and Old
   Republic. The “subject of the action” is the Policy—not the Entire Southern
   Tract itself. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). To be sure, in resolving PHH’s
   breach of contract claim, the court will likely need to consider the validity of
   PHH’s title to the Entire Southern Tract. 3 But this fact alone does not
   convert a simple breach of contract action into a trespass-to-try-title action
   in disguise. See Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449. Indeed, no trespass-to-try-title
   issue is lurking below the surface here, as PHH does not seek a judgment
   vindicating its ownership right in the Entire Southern Tract. See Lance, 543
   S.W.3d at 736. Instead, it seeks only to vindicate its contractual rights under
   the Policy, which are separate and distinct from any final determination of

           3
            We recognize that this places the district court in the unorthodox position of
   considering Old Republic’s liability under the Policy without the benefit of an underlying
   judgment resolving title to the Entire Southern Tract.

                                              10
Case: 22-50930        Document: 00516878742               Page: 11       Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                          No. 22-50930

   title to the Entire Southern Tract. See Musick, 531 S.W.2d at 588–89. For
   this reason, third parties claiming an interest in the Entire Southern Tract are
   not “required” parties to this breach of contract action under Rule 19(a). See
   Rajet, 801 F. App’x at 246 (noting that “Rule 19 relates to the specific action
   at bar”). 4 Because its Rule 19(a) analysis was rooted in an erroneous view of
   the law, the district court abused its discretion when it sua sponte dismissed
   this case under Rule 12(b)(7). Hood, 570 F.3d at 628.
                                                B.

           Even if the district court had correctly determined that a third party is
   “required” under Rule 19(a), it failed to progress to the second step of the
   inquiry required by Rule 19. See id. That is, it did not determine whether,
   “in equity and good conscience,” this case can proceed in the absence of
   anyone claiming a property interest in the Entire Southern Tract. See Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 19(b). In fact, the district court made no attempt to determine
   whether those “required parties” could be joined without destroying subject-
   matter jurisdiction. Nor did it make any attempt to apply the Rule 19(b)
   factors to determine whether those “required” parties were indispensable.
           Before dismissing a case for failure to join a required party under Rule
   19, a district court “must” consider the Rule 19(b) factors. Patterson, 390
   U.S. at 109. Simply put, a finding that a party is required under Rule 19(a),
   standing alone, cannot support dismissal—the court must also find the
   absent party to be indispensable after an examination of the Rule 19(b)
   factors. See, e.g., Santiago, 768 F. App’x at 1007.

           4
             This is not to say that a potential owner of real property can never be a required
   party to a title insurance dispute, only that, under Texas law, the mere fact that a potential
   owner of real property’s interests could be impacted by the adjudication of a title insurance
   dispute involving that property does not automatically make the potential owner a required
   party under Rule 19(a). Cf. Cook Paint & Varnish, 82 F.3d at 117; Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449.

                                                11
Case: 22-50930      Document: 00516878742            Page: 12    Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                      No. 22-50930

          By deciding to dismiss this case based solely on its conclusions under
   Rule 19(a), the district court failed to do what “Rule 19 clearly requires a
   court to do: undertake an examination of the practical and equitable [Rule
   19(b)] factors actually raised by the absence of a particular party in the case
   before it.” Id. As this court has previously held, this failure constitutes an
   abuse of discretion, as an insufficient Rule 19 analysis does not justify
   dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Rajet, 801 F. App’x at 246 (citing Santiago,
   768 F. App’x at 1005).
          In sum, the district court abused its discretion when it incorrectly
   concluded that a “required” party is absent from this case under Rule 19(a)
   and when it sua sponte dismissed the case without considering the Rule 19(b)
   factors. For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing
   this case under Rule 12(b)(7).
                                           V.
          We must also determine whether this case should be remanded to the
   district court for further consideration. On this point, the parties diverge.
   PHH contends that the court should follow its standard practice and remand
   this case to allow the district court to consider the merits of the parties’ cross-
   motions for summary judgment in the first instance. Old Republic counters
   that we may properly reach the merits of its cross-motion for summary
   judgment in this appeal.
          As a well-established general rule, this court “will not reach the merits
   of an issue not considered by the district court.” Magnolia Island Plantation,
   L.L.C. v. Whittington, 29 F.4th 246, 252 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotations
   omitted). Indeed, absent special circumstances, a federal appellate court will
   not consider an issue passed over by the district court. Man Roland, Inc. v.
   Kreitz Motor Exp., Inc., 438 F.3d 476, 483 (5th Cir. 2006). The special
   circumstances in which a federal appellate court is justified in resolving an

                                           12
Case: 22-50930     Document: 00516878742           Page: 13   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                    No. 22-50930

   issue “not passed on below” include those in which the “the proper
   resolution is beyond any doubt” and those in which “injustice might
   otherwise result.” Baker v. Bell, 630 F.2d 1046, 1056 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting
   Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 557 (1941)).
          The district court did not reach the merits of the parties’ cross-
   motions for summary judgment. In similar cases, this court has generally
   declined the invitation to rule on the merits of a cross-motion for summary
   judgment. Man Roland, 438 F.3d at 482–83 (declining to rule on the merits
   of a cross-motion for summary judgment that was not addressed by the
   district court). And yet, Old Republic maintains that this court should reach
   the merits of the parties’ motions “[i]n the interests of economy and
   efficiency.” But these interests—which are far from special circumstances—
   provide an insufficient basis to for this court to disregard the general rule
   against reaching the merits of a motion not “passed on below.” Baker, 630
   F.2d at 1056. Thus, we decline to reach the merits of the parties’ cross-
   motions for summary judgment.
                                        VI.
          For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s order
   dismissing this case and REMAND to the district court for further
   proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         13