Techoclaro
PRO
All cases
Homeowner lostBinding in federal courtPending attorney reviewLoss mitigation & dual trackingWrongful foreclosure

Milton v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Milton v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 508 F. App'x 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished)

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided
2013-01-18
Docket
12-40742

What happened

Mr. Milton applied for a HAMP modification. Servicer staff told him different things — that the sale was stopped, or that it had happened. His home was sold.

What the court decided

The Fifth Circuit held that an agreement to delay foreclosure is subject to the Texas statute of frauds and must be in writing; the oral assurances were not enforceable.

In the court's words

“An agreement to delay foreclosure is subject to the Texas statute of frauds”

Why it may matter to you

Get every postponement in writing — an email or letter from the servicer — and keep going with other protections until you have it.

Why it might not apply

Unpublished: not binding precedent even in the Fifth Circuit. Today, federal loss-mitigation rules (Regulation X) can give separate protections for a complete, timely application.

Most useful when

  • Someone at the servicer told you by phone the sale was postponed while they review you

How to cite it

The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.

Full citationMilton v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 508 F. App'x 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished)Short formMilton, 508 F. App'x 326

Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.

In Milton v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 508 F. App'x 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished), the court held that an agreement to delay a Texas foreclosure falls within the statute of frauds and must be in writing to be enforced. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]

Ask Techy about this case

Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.

Related cases

  • Homeowner lostBinding in federal court

    Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

    722 F.3d 249 · Decided 2013

    Mr. Martins refinanced his Texas home, later fell behind, and the servicer foreclosed. He argued the servicer could not foreclose without holding the original note, that he never got notice of the sale, and that the servicer had orally agreed to modify his loan.

    Read the case
  • Homeowner wonBinding

    Ogden v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n

    640 S.W.2d 232 · Decided 1982

    Mr. Ogden owned a house in Corpus Christi. After he fell behind, the savings association posted a trustee's sale and sold the house. He sued for wrongful foreclosure and lost in the lower courts.

    Read the case