Soto et al v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

E.D. Tex.September 16, 2016

PAGE 1 OF 11 579386.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RUDY ALLEN SOTO and MISTY MARIE WISE, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION and ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-cv-00725 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendants First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation (“First Guaranty”) and RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation (“RoundPoint”) move for final summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (the “Complaint”) pursuant to Rule 56 of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Summary judgment is proper because (1) actual receipt of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale is not required, (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1640 applies only to loan origination violations, not conduct related to loan modifications, and (3) service of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed is not required. First Guaranty and RoundPoint conducted the foreclosure sale lawfully and there is no fact issue to be determined at trial. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 899 PAGE 2 OF 11 579386.2 I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. The issues for this Court to determine in this Motion for Summary Judgment are: (1) Whether summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiffs’ claim regarding actual receipt of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale; (2) Whether summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiffs’ claim regarding violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1640; and (3) Whether summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiffs’ claims related to the Substitute Trustee’s Deed. II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2. Rudy Soto signed a Note in the amount of $140,409.00 dated March 1, 2013 originally payable to R.H. Lending, Inc.1 To secure payment of the Note, Rudy Soto also signed a Texas Deed of Trust encumbering the real property commonly known as 288 County Road 4430, Whitewright, Texas 75491.2 The Texas Deed of Trust is recorded in the official public records of Fannin County, Texas.3 MERS is the beneficiary listed in the Texas Deed of Trust.4 MERS transferred the Texas Deed of Trust to First Guaranty, as evidenced by the Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded in the official public records of Fannin County, Texas.5 3. Rudy Soto defaulted on the Note. RoundPoint, the authorized loan servicer for First Guaranty, sent Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate to Rudy Soto on September 23, 1 See Note, Exhibit A-1, App. 005-007; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002. 2 See Texas Deed of Trust, Exhibit A-2, App. 008-019; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 See Assignment of Deed of Trust, Exhibit A-3, App. 020-023; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 900 PAGE 3 OF 11 579386.2 2014.6 Rudy Soto did not cure the default.7 RoundPoint sent several letters to Rudy Soto regarding possible alternatives to foreclosure.8 In response, Rudy Soto submitted several incomplete loan modification applications to RoundPoint.9 RoundPoint received one complete application, which it reviewed.10 RoundPoint determined that Rudy Soto did not qualify for the requested borrower assistance and sent a letter to Rudy Soto informing him of the denial on September 19, 2014.11 The loan was never modified.12 4. Having exhausted alternatives to foreclosure, RoundPoint, through its foreclosure counsel, then sent Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale to Rudy Soto by certified mail return receipt requested.13 The property sold to First Guaranty at the June 2, 2015 foreclosure sale.14 The Substitute Trustee’s Deed confirming the sale is recorded in the official public records of Fannin County.15 There was no active loan modification review at the time of the foreclosure sale.16 5. Plaintiffs sued First Guaranty on September 14, 2015, in the 336th Judicial District Court of Fannin County, Texas, alleging that they never received notice of the foreclosure sale.17 Plaintiffs originally filed this action solely against First Guaranty. On October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary 6 See Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate, Exhibit A-4, App. 024-029; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002. 7 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002. 8 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002-003. 9 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 10 Id. 11 See Evaluation Notice dated September 19, 2014, Exhibit A-5, App. 030-035; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 12 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 13 See Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale, Exhibit A-6, App. 036-045; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 14 See Substitute Trustee’s Deed, Exhibit A-7, App. 046-052; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 15 Id. 16 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 17 Plaintiffs’ Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order an Temporary Injunction, Doc. No. 1-1 at p. 4. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 901 PAGE 4 OF 11 579386.2 Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction that sought to add Trustee Corps. as a defendant.18 First Guaranty filed its Original Answer on October 12, 2015.19 First Guaranty then removed this case to this Court on October 16, 2015.20 6. Plaintiffs dismissed Trustee Corps. from the case.21 On November 13, 2015, this Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within twenty one days.22 Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (the “Complaint”).23 In this Complaint, Plaintiffs sought to add RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation as a new defendant. 7. First Guaranty and RoundPoint filed their Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on December 14, 2015 (“First Motion to Dismiss”).24 Following the Court’s extension of their deadline, Plaintiffs filed a Response on January 22, 2016.25 First Guaranty and RoundPoint filed a Reply on January 28, 2016.26 8. The Court then entered an Order that made Plaintiffs’ paper copies of their exhibits to their Complaint—which were delivered to the Court’s chambers but not filed with the clerk—part of electronic record for this case.27 It also required First Guaranty and RoundPoint to file a notice indicating whether they had been served with copies of those exhibits.28 In compliance with the Order, First Guaranty and RoundPoint filed a notice confirming receipt of 18 Plaintiffs’ Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 1-1, p. 59. 19 Defendant First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation’s Original Answer, Doc. 3. 20 Defendant’s Notice of Removal, Doc. 1. 21 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Only as to Defendant MTC Financial, Inc., DBA Trustee Corps., Doc. 10. 22 Order, Doc. 11. 23 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 13. 24 Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, Doc. 17. 25 Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 23). 26 Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, Doc. 24). 27 Order, Doc. 27. 28 Id. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 902 PAGE 5 OF 11 579386.2 over 650 pages of exhibits and confirming that they were unsure whether those exhibits were identical to those that Plaintiffs delivered to the Court’s chambers.29 9. The Court then entered an Order Regarding Amended Complaint on July 21, 2016.30 The Court dismissed Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.31 After fully reviewing the 685 pages of exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Complaint entered in the Court’s record, First Guaranty and RoundPoint then filed their Second Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (“Second Motion to Dismiss”) on August 4, 2016.32 Plaintiffs did not file a response by their deadline, August 25, 2016. The Court gave Plaintiffs until September 27, 2016 to file a Response.33 As of the filing of this Motion, Plaintiffs have not filed a Response to the Second Motion to Dismiss. 10. First Guaranty and RoundPoint now file this Motion for Summary Judgment in compliance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, which states the deadline for all dispositive motions is September 16, 2016.34 III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE 11. First Guaranty and RoundPoint attach the following summary judgment evidence and incorporate it into this Motion by reference: Exhibit A Business Records Affidavit Exhibit A-1 Note Exhibit A-2 Texas Deed of Trust Exhibit A-3 Assignment of Deed of Trust 29 Defendants’ Certification as to Exhibits, Doc. 28. 30 Order Regarding Amended Complaint, Doc. 30. 31 Id. 32 Second Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, Doc. 31. 33 Order Regarding Second Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, Doc. 37. 34 Scheduling Order, Doc. 22. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 903 PAGE 6 OF 11 579386.2 Exhibit A-4 Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate Exhibit A-5 Evaluation Notice dated September 19, 2014 Exhibit A-6 Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale Exhibit A-7 Substitute Trustee’s Deed IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 12. Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.35 A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings and evidence it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.36 The movant must only show the absence of evidence to support a claim on which the non-movant bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial.37 Once the movant carries its burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show that summary judgment should not be granted.38 The non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.39 V. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Summary judgment is proper because actual receipt of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale is not required and the Notice was sent in compliance with the Texas Property Code. 13. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs concede that they have been provided with proof of service of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale.40 Plaintiffs allege that despite this proof of 35 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). 36 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 37 Id. at 323-24. 38 Id. at 324-25. 39 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986). 40 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 13, p. 5. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 904 PAGE 7 OF 11 579386.2 service, they never received the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale.41 Actual receipt of the Notice is not required under Texas law.42 The Texas Property Code states that service of the notice is complete once placed in the mail: Service of a notice under this section by certified mail is complete when the notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the debtor at the debtor’s last known address. The affidavit of a person knowledgeable of the facts to the effect that service was completed is prima facie evidence of service.43 Plaintiffs attached the Affidavit of Rosenda Cardenas of Trustee Corps. to their Complaint.44 In this Affidavit, Ms. Cardenas states that she is an employee of Malcolm & Cisneros, attorneys for RoundPoint. She states that service of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale was sent by certified mail to all obligors at least twenty-one days preceding the date of sale.45 According to the Texas Property Code, this Affidavit is prima facie evidence of service.46 14. Plaintiffs claim that actual receipt of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale is required, but this is not true. All of the following statutes cited by Plaintiffs are either inapplicable or do not require actual receipt of a Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale in a Texas non-judicial foreclosure: TEX. PROP. CODE § 51.002(b)(3); TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(a) & 501.4(a)(2); 12 U.S.C. §§ 3708(1)(A)(3), 3757, 3758(1)(2)(A)(i)(B)(i), & 3764(a)(5); FED. R. CIV. P. 4.1(a), 5(a)(1)(E)(3), & 5(b)(2)(A)(B)(ii)(C). Actual receipt of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale is not required.47 41 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 13, p. 5. 42 Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortg. Co., 121 S.W.3d 811, 817–18 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied). 43 TEX. PROP. CODE § 51.002(e) (emphasis added). 44 See Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, Doc. 13-1, p. 638. 45 See Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, Doc. 13-1, p. 638. 46 See TEX. PROP. CODE § 51.002(e). 47 TEX. PROP. CODE § 51.002(e); Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortg. Co., 121 S.W.3d 811, 817–18 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2003, pet. denied). Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 905 PAGE 8 OF 11 579386.2 15. First Guaranty and RoundPoint sent the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale to Rudy Soto’s last known address by certified mail return receipt requested, postage prepaid, in compliance with the Texas Property Code.48 The U.S. Postal Service left notice of the certified mail but the letter went unclaimed.49 Because First Guaranty and RoundPoint sent the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale to Rudy Soto in compliance with the Texas Property Code, summary judgment is proper on this claim. B. Summary judgment is proper on Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the Dodd–Frank Act because 15 U.S.C. § 1640 applies only to loan origination violations, not violations related to loan modifications. 16. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that RoundPoint has violated Section 1413 of the Dodd–Frank Act by prolonging negotiations for a loan modification.50 However, this statute only allows a consumer to assert a violation if a mortgage originator has (1) received prohibited steering incentives or other such fees at origination, or (2) has not made a reasonable and good- faith determination at origination that the consumer can repay the loan.51 This statute does not allow a consumer to assert a violation for failure to modify a loan, “dual tracking,” or anything of the like. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ reliance on 15 U.S.C. § 1640 is misguided. Because RoundPoint has not violated Section 1413 of the Dodd–Frank Act, summary judgment is proper on this claim. 17. Further, even if taken as true, any complaints by Plaintiffs about failure to modify the loan relate to the parties’ contractual relationship under the terms of the Note and Deed of 48 See Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale, Exhibit A-6, App.036-045; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 49 Id. 50 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 13, p. 6. 51 See 15 USCS § 1640(k); 15 USCS § 1639b(c)(1); 15 USCS § 1639b(c)(2); 15 USCS § 1639c(a). Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 906 PAGE 9 OF 11 579386.2 Trust, and cannot, as a matter of law, form the basis of an independent claim.52 Any agreement to modify the loan is subject to the statute of frauds.53 Under Texas law, a loan agreement that exceeds $50,000.00 in value is not enforceable unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the party to be bound or by that party's authorized representative.54 The term “loan agreement” includes any agreement or promise where a financial institution loans, delays repayment of, or agrees to loan or delay repayment of money, goods, or another thing of value or to otherwise extend credit or make a financial accommodation.55 Summary judgment is proper on Plaintiffs’ allegations related to modification of the loan, accordingly. 18. Finally, neither First Guaranty nor RoundPoint are affiliated with the company “American Servicing Mortgage Corporation” referenced by Plaintiffs in the Complaint, nor do Plaintiffs allege that they are in any was affiliated.56 RoundPoint sent several letters to Rudy Soto regarding possible alternatives to foreclosure.57 In response, Rudy Soto submitted several incomplete loan modification applications to RoundPoint.58 RoundPoint received one complete application, which it reviewed.59 RoundPoint determined that Rudy Soto did not qualify for the requested borrower assistance and sent a letter to Rudy Soto informing him of the denial on September 19, 2014.60 The loan was never modified and summary judgment is proper on these allegations.61 52 Croteau v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183327 at 44 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2013). 53 Kiper v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 884 F. Supp. 2d 561, 571 (S.D. Tex. 2012). 54 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 26.02(b). 55 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 26.02(a)(2). 56 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 13, p. 5. 57 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 002-003. 58 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. 59 Id. 60 See Evaluation Notice dated September 19, 2014, Exhibit A-5, App. 030-035; See also Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003 61 See Business Records Affidavit, Exhibit A, App. 003. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 907 PAGE 10 OF 11 579386.2 C. Summary judgment is proper on Plaintiffs’ allegations surrounding service of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed because service of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed is not required by Texas law. 19. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they “were never served the Substitute Trustee’s Deed.”62 However, nothing in the Texas Property Code or any other substantive Texas law requires service of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed, nor do Plaintiffs claim that service of Substitute Trustee’s Deed is required. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs received a copy of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed at some point and through some means, because they included it as an exhibit to their Complaint.63 Because service of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed is not required, summary judgment is appropriate on this claim. VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER There is no fact issued to be determined at trial. The foreclosure sale at issue in his case was conducted in compliance with Texas law. Actual receipt of the Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale is not required and the Notice was sent in compliance with the Texas Property Code. Also, First Guaranty and RoundPoint did not violate the Dodd-Frank Act because 15 U.S.C. § 1640 applies only to loan origination violations, not conduct related to loan modifications. Finally, service of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed is not required. For all of these reasons, First Guaranty and RoundPoint respectfully request final summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56. 62 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Application and Affidavit for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, Doc. 13, p. 5. 63 See Exhibits to Complaint, Doc. 13-9, p. 634. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 908 PAGE 11 OF 11 579386.2 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Emily G. Stroope R. DWAYNE DANNER State Bar No. 00792443 ddanner@mcglinchey.com EMILY G. STROOPE State Bar No. 24070692 estroope@mcglinchey.com BARRY A. MCCAIN State Bar No. 24092787 bmccain@mcglinchey.com MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC 6688 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 400 Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 445-2445 (214) 445-2450 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION AND FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 16, 2016, a correct copy of the foregoing pleading was filed with the Clerk of the Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system and that a correct copy of same was forwarded to the following: Via Certified Mail & Regular Mail Rudy Allen Soto Misty Marie Wise 288 CR 4430 Whitewright, TX 75409 Pro Se Plaintiffs /s/ Emily G. Stroope EMILY G. STROOPE Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39 Filed 09/16/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 909 579993.1 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RUDY ALLEN SOTO and MISTY MARIE WISE, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION and ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-cv-00725 APPENDIX TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Exhibit “A” Business Records Affidavit App. 1-4 Exhibit “A-1” Note App. 5-7 Exhibit “A-2” Texas Deed of Trust App. 8-19 Exhibit “A-3” Assignment of Deed of Trust App. 20-23 Exhibit “A-4” Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate App. 24-29 Exhibit “A-5” Denial Letter App. 30-35 Exhibit “A-6” The Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale App. 36-45 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 54 PageID #: 910 579993.1 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit “A-7” Substitute Trustee’s Deed App. 46-52 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Emily G. Stroope R. DWAYNE DANNER State Bar No. 00792443 ddanner@mcglinchey.com EMILY G. STROOPE State Bar No. 24070692 estroope@mcglinchey.com BARRY A. MCCAIN State Bar No. 24092787 bmccain@mcglinchey.com MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC 6688 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 400 Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 445-2445 (214) 445-2450 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION AND FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 16, 2016, a correct copy of the foregoing pleading was filed with the Clerk of the Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system and that a correct copy of same was forwarded to the following: Via Certified Mail & Regular Mail Rudy Allen Soto Misty Marie Wise 288 CR 4430 Whitewright, TX 75409 Pro Se Plaintiffs /s/ Emily G. Stroope EMILY G. STROOPE Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 54 PageID #: 911 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 54 PageID #: 912 App. 2 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 54 PageID #: 913 App. 3 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 54 PageID #: 914 App. 4 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 6 of 54 PageID #: 915 App 005 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 7 of 54 PageID #: 916 App 006 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 8 of 54 PageID #: 917 App 007 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 9 of 54 PageID #: 918 App 008 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 10 of 54 PageID #: 919 App 009 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 11 of 54 PageID #: 920 App 010 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 12 of 54 PageID #: 921 App 011 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 13 of 54 PageID #: 922 App 012 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 14 of 54 PageID #: 923 App 013 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 15 of 54 PageID #: 924 App 014 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 16 of 54 PageID #: 925 App 015 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 17 of 54 PageID #: 926 App 016 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 18 of 54 PageID #: 927 App 017 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 19 of 54 PageID #: 928 App 018 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 20 of 54 PageID #: 929 App 019 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 21 of 54 PageID #: 930 App 020 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 22 of 54 PageID #: 931 App 021 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 23 of 54 PageID #: 932 App 022 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 24 of 54 PageID #: 933 App 023 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 25 of 54 PageID #: 934 App 024 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 26 of 54 PageID #: 935 App 025 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 27 of 54 PageID #: 936 App 026 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 28 of 54 PageID #: 937 App 027 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 29 of 54 PageID #: 938 App 028 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 30 of 54 PageID #: 939 App 029 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 31 of 54 PageID #: 940 App 030 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 32 of 54 PageID #: 941 App 031 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 33 of 54 PageID #: 942 App 032 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 34 of 54 PageID #: 943 App 033 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 35 of 54 PageID #: 944 App 034 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 36 of 54 PageID #: 945 App 035 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 37 of 54 PageID #: 946 App 036 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 38 of 54 PageID #: 947 App 037 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 39 of 54 PageID #: 948 App 038 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 40 of 54 PageID #: 949 App 039 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 41 of 54 PageID #: 950 App 040 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 42 of 54 PageID #: 951 App 041 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 43 of 54 PageID #: 952 App 042 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 44 of 54 PageID #: 953 App 043 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 45 of 54 PageID #: 954 App 044 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 46 of 54 PageID #: 955 App 045 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 47 of 54 PageID #: 956 App 046 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 48 of 54 PageID #: 957 App 047 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 49 of 54 PageID #: 958 App 048 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 50 of 54 PageID #: 959 App 049 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 51 of 54 PageID #: 960 App 050 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 52 of 54 PageID #: 961 App 051 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 53 of 54 PageID #: 962 App 052 Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 54 of 54 PageID #: 963 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RUDY ALLEN SOTO and MISTY MARIE WISE, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION and ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-cv-00725 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On this day, the Court considered the Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Brief in Support filed by Defendants First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation and RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56. The Court, having considered the Motion, any responses and replies thereto, and all other evidence on file, finds that the Motion is meritorious and should be granted. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion. It is therefore ORDERED and DECREED that Defendants are awarded final summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs take nothing on their claims against Defendants. It is further ORDERED and DECREED that each party is responsible for its own costs and attorneys’ fees in this case. This Order disposes of all claims and all parties to this case and is final and appealable. Case 4:15-cv-00725-RC-KCJ Document 39-2 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 964