Case: 18-20289 Document: 00514695534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-20289 United States Court of Appeals
Summary Calendar
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 24, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
TINA ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff−Appellant,
versus
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant−Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:15-CV-1596
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Tina Alexander defaulted on her mortgage. To stem foreclosure, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-20289 Document: 00514695534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2018
No. 18-20289
sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) pro se. The district court granted
Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed. This court re-
versed in part and remanded. Again, the district court dismissed, and Alexan-
der, now represented by counsel, once more appeals.
The main dispute is whether Wells Fargo complied with applicable law
regarding the handling of an Acknowledgment of Value. Alexander claimed
her copy was lost. During the previous appeal, Wells Fargo supplied a copy.
On remand, the district court explained that “[c]onstrued liberally, Plaintiff’s
complaint stated a claim for quiet title based on Wells Fargo’s failure to timely
supplement a missing acknowledgment of Fair Market Value in violation of
Texas Constitution Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(ix). . . . Plaintiff argues . . . that
because Defendant allegedly did not provide a written Acknowledgment and
failed to cure the alleged deficiency, she is entitled to summary judgment on
her quiet title claim seeking to preclude foreclosure.”
The district court announced its decision in a careful ten-page Memoran-
dum Opinion and Order. It explained that “[t]he defect Plaintiff complains of—
lack of an Acknowledgment of Fair Market Value—was not in fact a defect.”
(Footnote omitted.) The court concluded that “an Acknowledgment of Fair
Market Value was fully executed at the time of closing.”
Alexander has had ample opportunity to litigate her meritless claim.
The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons compre-
hensively stated by the district court.
2