Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Debtor executed a Balloon Note and Deed of Trust in favor of Wells Fargo for the purchase of a home and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. On appeal, Wells Fargo challenged the district court's amended order granting debtor's motion for summary judgment, finding that Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from filing a claim in the Second Bankruptcy for any amounts that could have been, but were not, claimed in the First Bankruptcy. Because the district court abused its discretion in finding that Wells Fargo adopted inconsistent positions in debtor's bankruptcy proceedings and that the bankruptcy court's acceptance of Wells Fargo's claims in the First Bankruptcy was not negated by debtor's dismissal without discharge, the application of judicial estoppel was not warranted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to seventy-seven months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a sixteen-level crime of violence enhancement based on a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Because defendant's argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Quiroga-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to twenty-three months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a sixteen-level crime of violence enhancement based on a prior Texas conviction for sexual assault of a child. Because defendant's argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of whether petitioner waived his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the merits of petitioner's claim were adjudicated by the state courts, and that the state court's resolution of that claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Divers v. Cain" on Justia Law

This case arose when Highland filed suit against Bank of America for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, alleging that the terms sought by Bank of America in a debt-trade agreement did not conform to the parties' oral agreement. Highland appealed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of its claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Because the court found that the district court was justified in dismissing Highland's promissory estoppel claim, but that it erred in dismissing Highland's breach of contract claim, the court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. View "Highland Capital Mgmt. LP v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of condominium units that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, sued defendants after defendants failed to complete construction of the rebuild. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, based on the district court's finding that the 24-month construction obligations in the Purchase Agreements were not illusory and, therefore, the parties' contracts were exempted from the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosures Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. The court found that the language of the Purchase Agreements did not negate plaintiffs' abilities to seek damage and specific performance remedies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Hillman, et al v. Loga, III, et al" on Justia Law