Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James S. Doody; Paul D. Carrington, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Defendant-appellee
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT - 263 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2001)
August 24, 2001
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We answered all questions but two which we certified to the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court answered the first question in favor of Ameriquest Mortgage Company and did not then reach the second of our certified questions. Specifically, the Texas Supreme Court held:
... that section 50(a)(6)(Q)(x)'s cure provision applies to all the lender's obligations under the extension of credit. Upon the cure, the lender has established the terms and conditions the lender must satisfy to make a lien valid under section 50(c). Accordingly, the lien meets section 50(c)'s requirement that it is a lien that secures a debt described by this section.
With this holding, we vacate the order of dismissal entered by the district court and remand with instruction to enter judgment in favor of Ameriquest Mortgage Company denying all relief sought by appellants, plaintiffs below.
VACATED and REMANDED.