The opinion
Case: 24-40091 Document: 28-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 24-40091
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 13, 2024
Lyle W. Cayce
Eric Brown; Rosalind A. Brown, Clerk
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
PennyMac Loan Services, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:23-CV-377
______________________________
Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Homeowners Eric and Rosalind Brown, pro se, sued their mortgage
lender, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, under a novel legal argument to
declare their home free and clear of its mortgage. The district court
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-40091 Document: 28-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2024
No. 24-40091
dismissed the Browns’ lawsuit for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, which they now appeal. We AFFIRM.
I.
The Browns purchased their home with a $377,240.00 loan from
PennyMac in April 2021. PennyMac secured the mortgage loan through a
signed promissory note and a deed of trust. PennyMac, however, sold that
promissory note to JP Morgan, thus separating the note from the deed of
trust, which PennyMac retained.
The Browns filed suit against PennyMac in October 2021. The
Browns argued that “splitting” the note and deed of trust ended their
obligation to pay their mortgage, and they now claim to own their home free
and clear. Specifically, the Browns brought claims for breach of contract and
slander of title. They also sought declaratory relief and to quiet title.
The district court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
for failing to state a claim. The Browns now appeal that dismissal.
II.
We review de novo whether a complaint pleads a claim that is
plausible on its face under Rule 12(b)(6). Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637
(5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Bell v.
Eagle Mountain Saginaw Indep. Sch. Dist., 27 F.4th 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2022)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
2
Case: 24-40091 Document: 28-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2024
No. 24-40091
III.
On appeal, the Browns argue that the district court erred by granting
PennyMac’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Browns argue that
PennyMac violated the terms of the deed of trust by splitting the mortgage
from the note, which rendered the deed of trust unenforceable.
This court, however, has previously rejected this “split-the-note”
theory. Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 255-56
(5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the Browns do not point to any contractual
language in the deed of trust that otherwise excuses payment. In short, the
Browns have not pleaded a basis to show that their mortgage obligation has
been satisfied. It follows that their claims to quiet title, slander of title, and
declaratory relief are meritless.
IV.
We thus conclude: the district court properly dismissed the Browns’
lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, and accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the
case is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3