The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in a case involving a complex mortgage dispute with inheritance complications. The ruling, filed Jan. 30, 2026, also upheld the district court's entry of a prefiling injunction against pro se plaintiff Phyllis June Burris after the court deemed her a vexatious litigant.
The case, *Burris v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society*, arose from a convoluted situation involving inheritance and reverse mortgage obligations. According to court documents, O.T. Wallace Jr. executed a will in 2012 leaving his entire estate to his children. However, in 2016, Wallace executed a second will leaving his estate to his neighbor, Phyllis Burris.
Between the execution of the two wills, Wallace entered into a reverse mortgage agreement with Community First National Bank for his house. Wallace died in 2017, and Burris subsequently moved into the property.
The defendant in the case, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, was not acting in its individual capacity but solely as trustee for Finance of America Structured Securities Acquisition Trust 2018-HB1. This arrangement is typical in the mortgage-backed securities market, where loans are often bundled into trusts and managed by institutional trustees.
The dispute originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where Burris filed suit as a pro se litigant. Pro se litigation, where individuals represent themselves without legal counsel, presents unique challenges in complex financial cases involving mortgage servicing and structured securities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, finding that the trustee's position was legally sound.
In addition to granting summary judgment, the district court took the unusual step of entering a prefiling injunction against Burris after determining she was a vexatious litigant. Vexatious litigant designations are reserved for individuals who repeatedly file frivolous or harassing lawsuits. Such injunctions require court approval before the individual can file additional lawsuits, serving as a judicial gatekeeping mechanism to prevent abuse of the court system.
Burris appealed both rulings to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Richman, Engelhardt, and Wilson, issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court's decisions. Per curiam opinions are issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a single judge, typically indicating the panel's unanimous agreement on relatively straightforward legal issues.
The opinion was not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases. Unpublished opinions are often issued in cases that apply well-established legal principles to particular fact patterns without breaking new legal ground.
The case highlights several important legal concepts in modern mortgage litigation. Reverse mortgages, which allow homeowners to borrow against their home equity, create complex obligations that survive the borrower's death. When borrowers die, their heirs typically must either pay off the loan balance or surrender the property.
The involvement of a mortgage-backed securities trust adds another layer of complexity. These trusts, which became prominent in the early 2000s, pool mortgages and sell interests to investors. The trustee, in this case Wilmington Savings Fund Society, has fiduciary obligations to protect the interests of trust beneficiaries.
Inheritance disputes involving real property encumbered by mortgages present particular challenges. While Burris inherited the property under Wallace's 2016 will, the reverse mortgage obligations remained attached to the property. The legal principle that mortgages generally survive ownership transfers means new owners typically must satisfy existing debt obligations.
The vexatious litigant determination suggests Burris may have filed multiple related lawsuits, though the specific details of her litigation history are not detailed in the available court documents. Federal courts have broad discretion to manage their dockets and prevent abuse through prefiling injunctions.
For mortgage industry participants, the ruling reinforces established precedents regarding trustee authority and the enforceability of reverse mortgage obligations. The decision also demonstrates the courts' willingness to use procedural tools to manage repetitive litigation.
The affirmance leaves Burris with limited options for further review. She could potentially seek review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, though such petitions are granted rarely and typically only in cases involving significant legal questions or circuit splits.
The case reflects broader trends in mortgage litigation, where complex ownership structures and pro se litigants often clash in federal courts. As mortgage-backed securities remain a significant component of housing finance, similar disputes involving trustee authority and borrower obligations are likely to continue appearing on court dockets.
For practitioners in real estate and mortgage law, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of clearly explaining reverse mortgage obligations to potential heirs and the continued enforceability of mortgage liens regardless of ownership changes through inheritance or other transfers.