Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Co-op., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96, 101 (Tex.1999). Nothing on the face of the acceleration clause suggests that the parties intended to restrict the meaning of “encumbrance.” Nor is there any evidence in the summary judgment record reflecting such an intent. We must, therefore, give the word “encumbrance” its plain grammatical meaning, and that plain grammatical meaning includes easements. Third, an easement is subordinate to a prior deed of trust. “When the owner of real estate executes a valid deed of trust, and then conveys an interest in the mortgaged property to a third party, the rights of the mortgagor’s vendee are subject to the rights held by the beneficiary of the deed of trust.” Motel Enters., Inc. v. Nobani, 784 S.W.2d 545, 547 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (<HOLDING>); see also Cousins v. Sperry, 139 S.W.2d 665, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that buyer who purchased property at foreclosure sale took title free from easement granted after deed of trust (B) holding that the terms of the trust deed foreclosure statutes must be strictly complied with (C) holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone (D) holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage (E) holding foreclosure of prior deed of trust extinguished subsequent easement
Output (English): holding that the terms of the trust deed foreclosure statutes must be strictly complied with