Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gosby King v. Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co., 16-11275 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 16-11275 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 16-11275 Document: 00513903628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 16-11275 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED March 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce GOSBY KING; SHIRLEY KING, Clerk Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Amereiquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-11, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District C
More
Case: 16-11275 Document: 00513903628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 16-11275 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED March 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce GOSBY KING; SHIRLEY KING, Clerk Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Amereiquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-11, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CV-2182 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The sole issue on appeal in this Texas foreclosure action is whether the district court reversibly erred when it granted Defendant-Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claim that the state’s applicable four-year statute of limitations bars the instant foreclosure action * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-11275 Document: 00513903628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2017 No. 16-11275 and rejecting their insistence that Defendant-Appellee’s defense of abatement fails for insufficiency of summary judgment evidence. After reviewing the district court’s Order of July 19, 2016, which granted said motion for summary judgment, and considering the record on appeal, including the parties’ briefs and record excerpts, we are satisfied that the Final Judgment of the district court of that same date should be affirmed for essentially the same reasons set forth by that court in its Order. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer