1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 5 6 - CV B . J . W AR R E N AP P E L L ANT V . U . S. BA N K, N . A . , A S TR U STEE A PPELL EE F OR NE W CE NTUR Y HOM E E QUI TY L O AN TRUST, SE RI ES 2001- NC 2 AS S E T B AC K E D P AS S T HR OUGH C ERTI FI C A TES

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 17TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antB. J. W ar r en app ea l s f r om t he t r i al co ur t ’ s su m m ar y j udgm ent d e c l a r i n g t h a t Ap p e l l e e U. S. Ba n k , N. A. , a s Tr u s t e e f o r Ne w Cent ur y Hom e Equ i t y Loan Trust , S er i es 2 00 1- N C 2 A ssetB acked Pass T hr oug h C er t i f i cat es,2

hel d a va l i d l i en on he rpr ope r t y. Bec aus e w e h ol d t hat U . S. Bank di d notal l ege any gr oun ds i n i t s m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m ent , w e r ever se. I n 200 0, W ar r en exe cut ed a not e se cur ed by a dee d oft r us ti n f avo rof Ban k ofD esot o, N . A . , t o f i nance t he pur chase ofpr oper t y i n A r l i ngton, Texas. O n August17, 2001 , W ar r en r ef i nan ce d t he m or t gag e t hr ough t he exe cut i on of a not e, se cur ed by a dee d of t r us t , i n f avo r of N ew C ent ur y M ort gag e C o rpo rati o n . W h e n the es c row co m p a n y se n t th e fu n d s t o B a n k o f D e so to to p a y o ff i ts n o te, th a t b a n ke x e c u ted a re l e a se o f l i e n fo r th e d e e d o f t rus t i n i ts f avor ; t hi s r el ease w as f i l ed i n t he coun t y pr oper t y r ecor ds. The deed oft r ust i n f avoro fN ew C ent ur y, h ow ever , w as no tfi l ed i n t he coun t y pr oper t y r ecor ds. New Cen t ur y t he n pu r po r t e dl y a s s i gn e d t he note a nd d e e d oft r us tt o U. S. Ban k. In 2 0 0 6 , U .S . B a n ka c c e l e ra te d W a rre n ’s n o te a n d b e g a n th e fo re c l o s u re pr ocess. I t t hen di scover ed t hat t he or i gi nal of t he deed oft r usthad been l ost and t hatt he deed of t r ust had never been f i l ed i n t he coun t y pr oper t y r ecor ds. U . S. Bankbr oughts ui tag ai ns tW ar r en, r ai si ng t he f ol l ow i ng ca us es of a c t io n : ( 1 ) d e c la r a t o r y ju d g m e n t t o e s t a b lis h it s lie n a g a in s tt h e p r o p e r t y ; ( 2 ) in th e alt e rna ti v e , su b rog a ti o n fo r th e a m o u n t u se d to p a y o ff th e B a n k o f D e so to n o te a n d to d i s c h a rg e W a rre n ’s a d v a l o re m t a x e s ; (3 ) a ju d g m e n t fo r fo re c l o s u re3

and an orderofsal e; ( 4) nonj udi ci al f or ecl osur e; ( 5) publ i c auct i on; ( 6) qui et t it le ; a n d (7 ) w r ito fp o s s e s s io n . W a r r e n f ile d a g e n e r a l d e n ia l. U . S . Ban k t hen f i l ed a m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m ent . I tst at ed t hat “[ t ] hi s m ot i on e m br ac es al l of[ i t s] cl ai m s aga i ns t[ W ar r en] , ” but i n f ac tt he m ot i on onl y addr essed i t s decl ar at or y j udg m ent act i on. U . S . Ban k’ s evi dence i ncl uded , am ong ot herdocum ent s, a not ar i zed copy ofthe N ew C ent ur y deed oft r us t , a cop y oft he N ew C ent ur y not e, and B ankofD es ot o’ s r el ea se ofl i en. It a l s o i n c l u d e d th e a ffid a v i t o f A n n a J i m e n e z -R e y e s , a “ fo re c l o s u re fa c i l i ta to r” w i t h O cw en Loan S er vi ci ng, LLC , t he ser vi cerofW ar r en’ s not e. Ji m enez- R eyes st at es i n he ra f f i da vi tt ha tt he d e e d oft r us th a d be e n a s s i gn e d t o U. S. Ba nk, buts he di d nots t at e t hats he had se en any as si gnm ent of t he dee d oft r us tor even t hatsuch docu m ent exi st ed i n O cw en’ s f i l es. Th e r ecor ds at t ached t o her bus i nes s r ec or ds af f i dav i tdo noti ncl ude a cop y oft he i ns t r um entas si gni ng t he note and t he deed of t r ustt o U . S . Ban k. W ar r en di d notr es pond t o t he m oti on. The t r i al co ur tgr ant ed t he sum m ar y j udg m entan d or der ed t hatas ofA ugu st17 , 20 01 , N ew C ent ur y w as t he ow nerofa val i d f i r stl i en on t he pr oper t y, thatN ew C ent ur y had assi gned t he dee d oft r us tan d not e t o U . S. B ank , and t hatU . S. B ankhel d a l i en on t he pr ope r t y i n t he am ount of $20 8, 700 . The j udgm ent r ec i t ed t hat“ al l r el i efnot e x p r e s s ly g r a n t e d is d e n ie d ” a n d t h a tt h e ju d g m e n t“ f in a lly d is p o s e s o fa ll2 ... S ee L eh m an n v. Har- C on Cor p. , 39 S . W . 3d 191, 206 ( Te x. 2001 ) ( hol di ng t hatg ran ti n g m or e r el i eft han m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o m akes t he or der r ever si bl e butnoti nt er l ocutor y and st at i ng t hatl an g u a g e i n j udg m entt hat “[ t ] hi s j udg m entf i nal l y di sposes ofal l par t i es and al l cl ai m s and i s appeal abl e” w oul d l eave no dou bto fthe t r i al cour t ’ s i nt ent i on t hator dercom pl et el y di spose o f e n ti re c a s e ).

3 ... S eeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (a ), (c); MMP, Ltd. v. Jones , 710 S. W . 2d 59, 6 0 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ).

4 ... IHS C eda r

s Trea tm ent C tr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 143 S .W .3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 p a rti e s a n d a l l c l a i m s a n d i s a p p e a l a b l e .” Th e r ecor d on app eal does notshow t hatU . S . Ban k non sui t ed orsever ed i ts o th e r cl a i m s a g a i n st W a rr e n . W e n o te th a t be c a u se the trial co u rti n i ts or derde ni ed al l r el i efnotex pr es sl y gr ant ed and di sp os ed ofal l cl ai m s and pa r t i e s , t he c ou r tn e c e s s a r i l y r ul e d on a nd d e ni e d U. S. Ba nk ’ s o t he rp l e a ded causes ofact i on, i ncl udi ng i t s cl ai m s ofj udi ci al f or ecl osur e, non j u d i ci al f or ec l os ur e, qui et t i t l e, and w r i t ofpos se ss i on. 2 U . S . Ban k di d not f i l e a cr ossa p p e a l as se rt i n g erro r as to th a t pa rto f t h e tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. A p la in t if fis e n t it le d t o s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n a c a u s e o fa c t io n ifit c o n c lu s iv e ly p r o v e s a ll e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o ft h e c la im . 3 W he n r ev i ew i ng a su m m a ry j u d g m e n t, w e tak e as tr u e all ev i d e n c e fa v o rab l e to th e n o n m o v a n t, an d w e i ndul ge eve r y r ea so nab l e i nf er enc e a nd r es ol ve anydoub t s i n t he n o n m o v a n t’s fa v o r. 45 ... M c C o n n el l v. S o u th sideI

n dep . S c h . D i

st. , 858 S . W . 2d 337, 341 ( Tex. 1 9 9 3 ).

6 ... Jo h n s o n v. Bre w e r & Pritc h a rd , P.C ., 73 S. W . 3d 193, 204 ( Tex. 2 0 0 2 ); S ci

. Sp ectrum , I

nc. v. Marti

nez , 9 4 1 S .W .2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ). 7 ... M c C o n n ell, 858 S. W . 2d a t339 n. 2. 8 ... Id. a t341. 9 ... Westchester

Fi re I ns. C o. v. A lvarez , 576 S . W . 2d 771, 772 ( Tex. 1 9 7 8 ); o ve r

rule d o n o th e r

gro un dsb yCit yo f Ho us to n v. Cle a r

Cre ekBa sin A uth. , 5 8 9 S .W .2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 8 (T e x .1 9 7 9 ); Cam den Mach. & Tool , I nc. v. Cas ca de C o. , 8 7 0 S .W .2 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 3 , n o w ri t).

10 ... M c C o n n ell, 858 S. W . 2d a t343. 5 A s um m ar y j udgm ent m ot i on m us t “e xpr es sl y pr es entt he gr ounds upon w h i c h i t i s m a d e ,” 5 an d su m m ary j udgm entca nnotbe gr ant ed exc epton t he gr ounds expr es sl y pr es ent ed. 6 The t er m “ gr ounds ” m ea ns “ t he r ea so ns e n ti tl i n g th e m o v a n t to s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t.” 7 I n de t er m i ni ng w het hergr ounds a re e x p re s s l y p re s e n te d , re l i a n c e m a y n o t b e p l a c e d o n b r ie f s o r s u m m a ry j udg m entevi dence. 8 The pur pos e o ft hi s r equ i r em enti s t o pr ovi de t he oppos i ng part y w i t h a deq uat e i nf or m at i on for oppos i ng t he m ot i on a nd t o de f i ne t he i ss u e s o r po i n ts fo r t h e p u rpo se o f su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 9 G ene r al l y, t he nonm ova ntm us tex pr es sl y pr ese nt t o t he t r i al co ur tan y rea so n s fo r a v o i d i n g th e m o v a n t’ s r i g h t to su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 10N o r esponse is n e c e s s a r y , h o w e v e r , w h e n t h e m o v a n t ’s s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t p r o o fis le g a lly11 ... Rhon e-Poulenc, I nc. v. Steel, 9 9 7 S .W .2 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 9 ); City of Hous ton v. Clea r

Creek Ba si

n Auth. , 5 8 9 S .W .2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 8 (T e x . 1 9 7 9 ). 12 ... S ee Malooly Bros. v. Napier, 4 6 1 S .W .2 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 (T e x . 1 9 7 0 ). 13 ... Clea r

Creek Ba si

n Auth. , 589 S. W . 2d a t678.

6 i n su ffi c i e n t. 11 O n a p p e a l , W a rre n b ri n g s a g e n e ra l i s s u e c o n te n d i n g th a t th e tri a l c o u rt er r ed by g r ant i ng U . S. B ank ’ s su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on. 12 I n t hati ss ue, s he m akes f ourar gum ent s. I n herfi r sttw o ar gum ent s, she contends t hatthe t r i al cour t di d not have j ur i sdi ct i on because ( 1) t her e w as no j ust i ci abl e cont r over sy bet w een W ar r en and U . S . Ban k and ( 2) U . S . Ban k f ai l ed t o i ncl ude al l i nt er est ed par t i es. I n herr em ai ni ng ar gum ent s, she cont ends t hatU . S . Ban k’ s m ot i on w as i ns uf f i ci entt o e nt i t l e i t to su m m ar y j udgm entbe ca us e U. S. Bank( 3) di d not m e e t i ts b u rde n o f p roo f a n d (4 ) fai l e d to e x p res sly pre se n t an y g rou n d s i n i ts m o t io n . A lt h o u g h W a r r e n d id n o t r e s p o n d t o t h e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n tm o t io n in t he t r i al co ur t , she cor r ect l y ar gues t hata par t y m ay chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency o fa s u m m a r y ju d g m e n tm o t io n f o rt h e f ir s tt im e o n a p p e a l. 13 W i t h r es pec tt o he rs ec ond a r gu m en t , W ar r en as se r t s t hatU . S. Bank fa i l e d to a d d a n y o th e r in te re s te d p a rti e s to i ts a c ti o n ; sh e d o e s n o t, h o w e v e r, i nf or m t hi s cour tw ho U . S . Ban k f ai l ed t o j oi n. The S upr em e C our tofTexas has hel d t hat t he absence ofi nt er est ed par t i es does notnecessar i l y depr i ve a14 ... Bro o ksv. No rthglen A s s ’n , 1 4 1 S .W .3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 2

– 6 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). 15 ... S ee i

d. ; T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a ). 16 ... S ee Brooks , 141 S. W . 3d a t163. 17 ... B o n h a m S ta teBa n kv. B e a d le , 9 0 7 S .W .2 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ). 7 tri a l c o u rt o f j u ri s d i c ti o n t o e n te r a d e c l a ra to ryj u d g m e n t a s to p a rti e s w h o a re b e fo re th e c o u rt, a l th o u g h a c o u rt m a y b e w i th o u t j u ri s d i c ti o n to e n te r a decl ar at or y j udg m entw i t h r espectt o non -j oi ned i nt er ested par t i es. 14 Fur t her m or e, W ar r en di d notm ak e t hi s ar gum enti n t he t r i al cour t . Beca us e s he d i d n o t ra i s e th i s a rg u m e n t i n th e tri a l c o u rt, sh e fa i l e d to p re s e rv e e rro r. 15 A d d it io n a lly , s h e h a s n o ts h o w n t h a te r r o r , ifa n y , is f u n d a m e n t a l. 16 A c c o rding l y , w e d o n o t co n side r t h i s a rgu m e n t. I n he rf i r stand f our t h a r gum ent s, W ar r en con t end s t hatt her e w as no j ust i ci abl e cont r over sy bet w een W ar r en and U . S . Ban k and t hatU . S . Ban k f ai l ed t o pr es entan y gr ounds i n i t s m ot i on. Thes e a r gum ent s ar e r el at ed and w e c o n s i d e r th e m to g e th e r. A t r ia l c o u r t s h o u ld e n t e ra d e c la r a t o r yju d g m e n t“ o n ly ifa ju s t ic ia b le contr over sy exi st s as t o t he r i ghts and st at us oft he par t i es and t he contr over sy w i l l be r eso l ve d b y the de cl arat i on so u g h t.” 17 A j u s ti c i a b l e c o n tro v e rs y i s ” ’a rea l an d su b sta n ti a l co n tr o v e rsy i n v o l v i n g g e n u i n e co n fl i c t of tan g i b l e i n tere sts18 ... Id. ( quot i ng B exa r-M e d in a -A ta s c o s a C o un tie sW a te r C o n tro l & Imp ro vem en t D i

s t. No . 1 v . M e di

n a L a k ePro te c ti

o n A s s ’n , 640 S. W . 2d 778, 7 7 9

– 8 0 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 8 2 , w ri t re f’d n .r.e .)). 8 a n d n o t m e re l y a th e o re ti c a l d i s p u te .’” 18 W e a gr ee w i t h W ar r en t hatU . S . Bankdi d nots pec i f y i n i t s m ot i on a r eason w hy i tw as ent i t l ed t o sum m ar y j udg m ent . The m ot i on cor r ect l y st at ed t h a ta d e c la r a t o r y ju d g m e n ta c t io n is o n ly a v a ila b le w h e r e t h e r e is a ju s t ic ia b le c o n t r o v e r s y , b u t it f a ile d t o s p e c if y a n y ju s t ic ia b le c o n t r o v e r s y e x is t in g in t h is ca se . Th e m o t i o n s t a t e d o n l y t h a t ( 1) i t w a s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t W a r r en bough t t he pr op e r t y a t a r e a l e s t a t e s a l e a nd t ha t t he r e w a s a s ub s e qu e ntr ef i nance l oan t r ans ac t i on bet w ee n W ar r en and N ew C ent ur y; ( 2) due t o c l er i ca l er r oran d th rou g h n o fau l t o f W a rr e n , N e w C e n tu ry, o r U .S . B a n k , th e d e e d o f t rus t w i th N ew Ce n t u r y w a s n o t f i l e d i n t h e p r o p e r t y r e c o r d s ; ( 3) U. S. Ba n kw as t he cur r enthol deroft he note and t he deed of t r ust ; and ( 4) U . S . Ban k w as ent i t l ed t o a de cl ar at or y j udgm entde t er m i ni ng t he r i ght s oft he par t i es t o t he t r ansact i on and est abl i shi ng t he deed of t r ust i n t he am oun tof$2 08 , 70 0 as a l i en on t he pr ope r t y i n f or ce as oft he dat e o ft he dee d oft r us t ’ s exe cut i on. A l t hough t he or i gi nal de ed of t r us t has be en l os t , U . S. Banks t i l l r et ai ns a n o tari ze d co p y . U .S . B a n kd i d n o t al l e g e tha t t h e re w a s a n y d i sp u te a s to w het heri tw as t he ben ef i ci ar y oft he dee d oft r us toras t o t he val i di t y oft he19 ... S e eM c C o n n ell, 858 S. W . 2d a t341. 20 ... S eeTe x. R. App . 47. 1. 9 i nst r um ent , an d i tfai l ed t o al l ege ord em onst r at e thatthe decl ar at i on i tasked f o rw o u ld re s o lv e a n y d is p u t e . It d id n o t , f o re x a m p l e , a r g u e t h a titc o u ld nei t herr ec or d i t s i nt er es tnort ak e any ac t i on agai ns tt he pr ope r t y w i t h onl y a n o t a r iz e d c o p y o ft h e d e e d o ft r u s t , o rt h a tW a r r e n d is p u t e d t h a tU .S . B a n kh e ld anyi nt er es ti n t he pr ope r t y. Bec aus e i tf ai l ed t o a l l ege any grou nd s f or sum m a ry j u d gm enton i t s decl ar at or y j udg m entact i on, i t s m ot i on w as i n s u fficie n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w a n d t h e t ri a l c o u rt e rre d b y g ra n ti n g th e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 19 B e c a u s e w e h a v e h e l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b y g r a n t i n g s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t, w e d o n o t r e a c h W a rr e n ’s rem a i n i n g arg u m e n t. 20 H avi ng s ust ai ned W ar r en’ s i ssue, w e r ever se t he j udg m ent of t he tr i al cour tand r em and t hi s case f orf ur t herpr oceedi ngs.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 26, 2009