
    Darlene Lanell HOSEA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY; Wells Fargo Bank, Defendants-Appellees Darlene Lanell Hosea, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wells Fargo Minnesota NA, as Indenture Trustee of Group of Repossessed Properties (GRP) Real Estate Asset Trust 2004-1, Defendants-Appellees Darlene Lanell Hosea, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company; Town and Country Credit Corporation; AMC Mortgage Services, Inc., formerly known as Bedford Home Loans; ACC Capital Holdings Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-20716
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 25, 2008.
    Darlene Lanell Hosea, pro se.
    Lindsay L. Lambert, Hughes, Watters & Askanase, Houston, TX, Britton Lee Larison, Rapier & Wilson, Allen, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Darlene Lanell Hosea, pro se, challenges the summary judgment awarded Defendants, contending a genuine issue of material fact exists on whether her home-equity loan is valid. The note for that loan from Ameriquest Mortgage Company was assigned to Wells Fargo Minnesota NA.

After Hosea defaulted, Wells Fargo sought judicial foreclosure. Hosea responded by filing multiple complaints against Ameriquest and Wells Fargo, three of which were consolidated into this action.

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same standard as did the district court. E.g., Wheeler v. BL Dev. Corp., 415 F.3d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 2005). Such judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.CivP. 56(c). No genuine issue of material fact exists if, pursuant to the summary-judgment evidence, no reasonable juror could find in favor of the nonmovant. E.g., Jenkins v. Methodist Hosps. of Dallas, Inc., 478 F.3d 255, 260 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 181, 169 L.Ed.2d 35 (2007).

Hosea contends: according to public records, the property securing the home-equity loan is more than one acre; homesteads could not be more than one acre when she executed the loan; therefore, it is invalid. See Tex. Const, art. XVI, § 51 (amended 1999) (defining homestead). Assuming arguendo her legal contention is correct, Hosea failed to present any evidence establishing the property is more than one acre. On the other hand, as the district court found, defendants introduced uncontroverted evidence showing the plot securing the loan is less than an acre.

Accordingly, and essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is 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.
     