Grant Trevarthen v. US Bank National Associ
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- DHI Holdings, LP v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for GSamp Trust 2006-SD1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-SD1 Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC And Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Tex. App. 2022)
- Gutierrez v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC. (District Court, W.D. Texas 2021)
- Daniel Ybarra and Lisa Ybarra v. Ameripro Funding, Inc., U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Banc of America Finding 2005-HTrust, Banc of America, N.A. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. AKA "MERS" (Tex. App. 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiffs-Appellants Grant and Clare Trevarthen, husband and wife, appeal the Rule § 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice of their suit against Defendants-Appellees. This action, originally filed in state court and removed therefrom, involved the foreclosure on their residence in Cedar Park, Texas. We affirm.
Like the district court before us, we have reviewed the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants-Appellants, the response of the Trevarthens, and the reply thereto of Defendants-Appellants, as well as the appellate briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As a result, we are satisfied that the district court nailed this one precisely in the concluding paragraph of its Order of April 26, 2013. After noting that this is “not the first time Grant Trevarthen has appeared before this Court in frivolous foreclosure litigation” and after identifying prior cases of that ilk, the court concluded *149 that “the spurious allegations and baseless causes of action asserted indicate this suit is simply more legal gamesmanship by the Trevarthans in their ongoing campaign to abuse the legal system and win a free house.” We agree, adding only that the instant appeal is equally spurious and contumacious.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.