Case: 13-10078 Document: 00512380342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 20, 2013
No. 13-10078 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
ANNA JOYCE WILTSE
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, L.L.C.
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CV-0680
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anna Joyce Wiltse brought an action against Carrington Mortgage
Services in Texas state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Carrington’s
lien on her home is invalid. Wiltse alleges that the lien, which secures a $68,000
loan, is invalid due to noncompliance with Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6) of the
Texas Constitution. Specifically, Wiltse alleges that the amount of the loan was
greater than eighty percent of the fair market value of her home, and that she
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10078 Document: 00512380342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2013
No. 13-10078
was charged more than three percent of the loan’s value for closing fees.
Carrington removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss Wiltse’s
claim as time-barred. Carrington argued that the four-year residual limitations
period of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.051, which applies
to “[e]very action for which there is no express limitations period, except an
action for the recovery of real property,” is applicable to Wiltse’s claim. The
district court granted Carrington’s motion and dismissed Wiltse’s claim.
On appeal, Wiltse argues that the residual limitations period does not
apply to an action under Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution.
However, as Wiltse recognizes, this argument is foreclosed by our holding in
Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
2