Case: 15-40344 Document: 00513322419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-40344 December 28, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CAROL PASELK,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
versus
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C.,
and All Unidentified Associates, Directors, Staff, Employees, Members,
Supporters and Volunteers in Their Official and Individual Capacities,
Defendant–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CV-262
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Along with Myrtle Reynolds, Carol Paselk took out a residential
mortgage. The borrowers eventually were in default for failure to make
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-40344 Document: 00513322419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
No. 15-40344
payments as required for a period of about a year. After the loan servicer
issued a notice of default, Paselk cured the default by entering into a loan mod-
ification, but the loan later went again into default. Bayview Loan Servicing,
L.L.C. (“Bayview”), which was by then the loan servicer, foreclosed.
Paselk sued Bayview for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, eco-
nomic duress, lost profits, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful inter-
ference, and negligence. Bayview sought summary judgment on the ground of
limitations and lack of evidence. The district court, adopting the sixteen-page
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, determined that the long-
est applicable limitations period under the governing Texas law was four years.
Paselk based her claims on actions between 2005 and 2008 but did not sue
until 2013. The court also determined that, to defeat the defense of limitations,
Paselk had not shown facts to invoke the “discovery rule” or the “fraudulent
concealment” doctrine. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s detailed ex-
amination of the facts that revealed that, aside from the limitations bar, Paselk
had tendered no facts to establish liability under the legal theories she put
forth. The district court also noted that Paselk had not objected to the sub-
stance or findings of the magistrate judge’s report.
The decision of the district court is correct as to both the limitations bar
and the lack of evidence to show liability. The summary judgment is
AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge.
2