Reese v. Wells Fargo
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 5 months 3 weeks ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- No. 25-10161 (5th Circuit, Aug 27,2025) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The circuit court affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment. Plaintiffs failed to brief the issues and to meet the Rule 28 standards. Plaintiffs’ brief failed to challenge the district court’s finding that they abandoned their statutory claims on summary judgment. Plaintiffs further did not offer substantive authorities or arguments to upset the district court’s ruling that their eviction mooted their request for injunctive relief. A lack of genuine dispute as to any fact material to the judgment appealed mandated the granting of summary judgment under Rule 56(a).
- Procedural context:
- Plaintiffs sued Defendants in state court, disputing Defendants’ foreclosure of property used as collateral. Defendants removed the case to federal court to resolve claims reliant on federal law. Defendants moved for summary judgment in the district court, which the court granted. Plaintiffs appealed the district court judgment to the circuit court.
- Facts:
- Wendell and Karen Reese (“Plaintiffs”) took a $225,500 home-equity loan in 2005 that was secured by their home. Plaintiffs last paid on the loan in 2012. Wells Fargo, the lender, foreclosed on and auctioned the home in 2022, selling it to Breckenridge. Breckenridge then commenced eviction proceedings in state court, obtaining a final judgment of eviction in 2022. Defendants sued Wells Fargo and Breckenridge (“Defendants”) in state court, alleging wrongful foreclosure and violation of numerous statutes. Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief restraining eviction. The state court found against Plaintiffs, denying their application for a temporary restraining order. Breckenridge evicted Plaintiffs in 2023, after the state court decision. Wells Fargo then removed the case to federal court to resolve the question of federal law. A magistrate judge recommended a decision against Plaintiffs as they failed to address Wells Fargo’s summary-judgment arguments. The magistrate judge also found that Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction was moot because Plaintiffs had already been evicted. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the circuit court. The circuit court found that Plaintiffs’ brief did not discuss the district court’s reason for entering summary judgment against them. Plaintiffs only superficially disagreed with the conclusion that their request for injunctive relief was mooted. Lastly, Plaintiffs failed to identify any genuine dispute as to any material fact. Thus, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- Judge(s):
- Davis, Smith, and Higginson
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
