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

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 4 5 7 - CV
DAR R E L LK . W AL L AND E R AP P E L L ANT V . TEX O M A CO M M U N I TY CR ED I T U N I O N A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 89TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n f i ve i ssues, ap pel l antD ar r el l K . W al l anderappeal s t he t r i al court ’ s or der g r a n t in g t h e s u m m a r yju d g m e n tm o t io n o fa p p e lle e T e x o m a C o m m u n it yC r e d it U ni on ( Texom a) on i t s cl ai m f ora def i ci enc y j udgm entf ol l ow i ng t he s al e o f W a l l a n d e r ’ s r e p o s s e s s e d c a r . We a f f i r m.2 ... A s partoft he 2 00 1 ag r eem ent , Texo m a gai ned t he r i gh t t o t ake

possessi on of and sel l any pr opert y gi ven as secur i t yfo r a p art i cul arl oan adv anc e. The agr ee m ents t at ed t hat W al l and ers t i l l ha d t o pa y a ny d ebt r em ai ni ng a f t ert he pr ope rt y ha d be en so l d.

3 ... A tt he t i m e ofthe 2 0 0 5 l oan, t he part i es val ued W al l ander ’ s carat $7, 875.

4 ... B ecaus e o ft he ac cr ual ofi nt er es ts i ncef i l i ng i t s pet i t i on, Texo m a so u g h t $ 4 ,3 4 1 .9 6 i n d a m a g e s i n i ts su m m a ry j u d g m e n t m o tio n , a l o n g w i th $1 , 50 0 i n at t or ney’ s f ees. 2 B a c k g rou n d F a c ts In 2 0 0 1 , T e x o m a a g re e d t o m a k e o c c a s i o n a l lo a n a d v a n c e s to W a l l a n d e r. 2 O n A p ri l 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , W a l l a n d e r bo rr o w e d $ 6 ,0 2 4 .7 5 fr o m T e x o m a , a g ree i n g to paym ont hl y i ns t al l m ent s on t he l oan and of f er i ng hi s 199 9 Pont i ac ass ec ur i t y. 3 W a l l a n d e r de fau l ted o n th e l o a n , a n d T e x o m a rep o ss e ss e d th e c a r a n d so l d i t. H o w e v e r, the sa l e s p ri c e d i d n o t co v e r W a l l a n d e r’ s re m a i n i n g d e b t. In M a y2 0 0 8 , T e x o m a f ile d it s p e t it io n , s e e k in g a ju d g m e n tf o rt h e u n p a id debt of$3 , 91 3. 86 pl us at t or ney’ s f ees. Texo m a at t ached cop i es oft he l oan d o c u m e n t s t o it s p e t it io n . W a lla n d e ra n s w e r e d b yw a yo fg e n e r a l d e n ia l. I n S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 8 , T e x o m a fi l e d i ts m o ti o n for su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 4 T h e m ot i on i ncl ude d a n a f f i dav i tf r om Ken Thom as on, Texo m a’ s chi efl end i ng of f i ce r , s w ea r i ng t o t he val i di t y oft he l oan docum ent s, W al l and er ’ s def aul tan d h i s re fu sa l to p a ythe b a l a n c e , a n d T h o m a so n ’s fam i l i a ri ty w i th ap p rop ri a te st at ut or y pr ocedu r es.3

W al l anderf i l ed a r esponse. H e n ot ed t hatTexo m a f i l ed i t s m ot i on l ess t han t w o m ont hs af t erhe had appea r ed and ans w er ed, an d heobj ec t ed t o t he su m m a ry j u d g m e n t su b m i ss i o n se tti n g b a se d o n h i s al l e g e d i n su ffi c i e n t t i m e to pr e pa r e h i s c a s e . He s ub m i t t e d a l e t t e rf r om Te xom a d at ed Jun e 25, 2007 , s t a t i n g t h a tt h e c a r h a d s o l d f o r $ 2 0 0 a n d t h e d e f i c i e n c ywa s $ 6 , 3 2 1 . 8 6 . He al so obj ec t ed t o T hom as on’ s af f i dav i t . H e cont end ed t hatt her e w er e g enu i ne m at er i al i ssues off act , ci t i ng t he di scr epancy b et w een t he $ 20 0 sa l es pr i ce i n d i c a te d i n T e x o m a ’s l e tte r a n d th e $ 2 ,6 0 8 s a l e s p ri c e c l a i m e d i n T h o m a s o n ’s a ffi d a v i t. O n O ct obe r28, 2008 , t he tr i al co urtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm entf or T e x o m a i n t h e a m o u n to f$ 4 ,3 4 1 .9 6 p lu s a t t o r n e y ’s f e e s a n d in t e r e s t . T h is app ea l f ol l ow ed. The Pr opr i ety oft he Tr i alCourt ’ s Sum m ary Ju dgm entD ec i si on S um m ary j udg m entpr i nci pl es W e re v i e w s u m m a r yju d g m e n ts d e n o v o . Gray v. Nash , 259 S. W . 3d 286 , 289 ( T ex . A pp . — FortW ort h 2008, pe t . de ni ed) . The f unc t i on of sum m ar y j udg m entpr act i ce i s nott o depr i ve a l i t i gant of t he r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al but t o el i m i nat e pat e n tl y unm er i t or i ous cl ai m s and unt enabl e def enses. Gul b en ki a nv. Penn , 1 5 1 T e x . 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 , 2 5 2 S .W .2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 1 (1 9 5 2 ).4

S um m ary j udg m enti s pr operw hen par t i es do notdi sp u te the r el evantf act s. Ha vlenv. Mc D o uga ll, 2 2 S .W .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ). I n a s um m ary j udgm entca se , t he i ss ue on app ea l i s w het hert he m ova nt m ett he su m m ary j udgm entbur den by es t abl i sh i ng t hatno g enu i ne i ss ue of
m at er i al f ac tex i st s and t hatt he m ova nti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entasa m att erof l a w . T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); S w. E le c . Po wer Co . v. Gran t, 73 S . W . 3d 211, 2 1 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); City of Hous ton v. Clea r Creek Ba si n Auth. , 589 S. W . 2d 671, 678 ( Tex. 1979 ) . The bur den of pr oof i s on t he m ova nt , and al l doub t s abo ut t h e e x i s t e n c e o fa g e n u i n e i s s u e o fm a t e r i a l f a c ta r e r e s o l v e d a g a i n s tt he
m o v a n t. S w. E

le c . Po wer Co ., 73 S . W . 3d a t215. W hen r evi ew i ng a sum m a ry j u d gm ent , w e t ake as t r ue al l evi dence f avo r abl e t o t he nonm ova nt , a nd w e i ndul ge eve r y r ea so nab l e i nf er enc e a nd re s o l v e a n yd o u b ts i n th e n o n m o v a n t’s fa v o r. V al enc e Operati

ng Co. v. D o rse tt, 1 6 4 S .W .3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). E v i d e n c e th a t fa v o rs th e m o v a n t’s p o s i ti o n w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e re d u n l e s s i t i s u n c o n tro v e rte d . Grea tA m . Res erve I ns . Co. v. San Antoni o Pl um bi ng Supply Co. , 3 9 1 S .W .2 d 4 1 , 4 7 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ). B u tw e m u s tc o n s id e rw h e t h e rr e a s o n a b le a n d f a ir -m in d e d ju r o r s c o u ld d if f e rin th e i r c o n c l u s i o n s i n l i g h t o f a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e p re s e n te d . S ee W al
-MartStores, I nc. v. Sp ates , 1 8 6 S .W .3 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ); City of Kel ler v. W i l so n , 168 S .W .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 2

– 2 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ).5

W e c an onl y con si dert he m at er i al on f i l e w i t h t he t r i al co urtasoft he ti m e th e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t w a s g ra n te d . Brookshi re v. Longh o r

n Chevrolet Co. , 78 8 S . W . 2d 20 9, 21 3 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 1 99 0, no w r i t ) . Pl eadi ngs, e v e n i f s w o rn to , d o n o t c o n s ti tu te s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t p ro o f. L a i d l a wW a ste S ys. , I nc. v. City of

W i l m er, 9 0 4 S .W .2 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ). A n a ly s is In f iv e re la t e d is s u e s , W a lla n d e ra s s e rt s t h a ts u m m a r yju d g m e n tis p r e c lu d e d b e c a u s e (1 ) T e x o m a ’s p le a d in g s d id n o t f o llo w t h e p r o v is io n s o fru le 185 oft he r ul esofci vi l pr oce dur e; ( 2) Texo m a f ai l ed t o pr ove t hatt he sa l e o f t h e c a r wa s c o mm e r c i a l l y r e a s o n a b l e o r t h a t i t c o mp l i e d wi t h s e c t i on s 9. 610 and 9. 6 1 1 oft he bus i nes s and co m m er ce co de; an d ( 3) t her e a r e g enu i ne m a te ri a l i s s u e s o f fa c t. S eeTex. R . C i v. P. 1 85; T ex. B us . & Com . Code Ann. § § 9 .6 1 0

– .6 1 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). C o m p l i a n c ew ith ru l e1 8 5 o f th eru l e so f c i v i lp ro c e d u re I n hi s se con d i ss ue, W al l and erar gue s t hat t he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng Texom a’ s sum m ary j udgm entm ot i on be ca us e Te xom a’ s pl ea di ngsdi d not f ol l ow r ul e 18 5 to es t abl i sh suf f i ci ent e v i d e n c e t o suppo rta pr i m e f aci e case i n a sui ton a sw or n accoun t . The r ul e st at es, W hen an y a ct i on orde f ens e i s f ounde d upo n a n open ac cou ntor o t h e r c la im f o r g o o d s , w a r e s a n d m e r c h a n d is e , in c lu d in g a n yc la im f ora l i qui dat ed m one y de m and ba se d upo n w r i t t en co nt r ac tor6

f ounde d on busi ne ss d ea l i ngsbe t w ee n t he part i es , ori s f or p e r s o n a l s e r v ic e re n d e r e d , o rla b o rd o n e o rla b o ro rm a t e r ia ls f u r n is h e d , o n w h ic h a s y s t e m a t ic re c o r d h a s b e e n k e p t , a n d is suppo rt ed by af fi d a v i toft he part y, hi s agentorat t or ney t aken bef or e som e of f i ceraut hor i zed t o adm i ni st eroat hs, to the ef f ect t hats uch cl ai m i s, w i t hi n t he kno w l edg e o ft he af f i an t , j us tan d tr u e , th a t i t i s d u e , a n d tha t al l j u st a n d l a w fu l o ffse ts, pa y m e n ts a n d c r e d i t s h a v e b e e n a llo w e d , t h e s a m es h a ll b e t a k e n a s p r im a f a c ie e v id e n c e t h e r e o f , u n le s s t h e p a rt yr e s i s t in g s u c h c la im s h a ll fi l e a w ri tte n d e n i a l , u n d e r o a th . A p a rtyre s i s ti n g s u c h a s w o rn cl ai m sh al l com pl y w i t h t he r ul es of pl ea di ng as ar e r equ i r ed i n a ny o t h e rk in d o fs u it , p r o v id e d , h o w e v e r , t h a tifh e d o e s n o tt im e lyf ile a w r i t t en den i al , underoat h, he sh al l notbe per m i t t ed t o de ny t he cl ai m , oran y i t em t her ei n, ast he ca sem ay be. No part i cul ar i z at i on orde sc r i pt i on oft he nat ur e oft he com pone ntpart s oft he ac cou nt orcl ai m i s necessary unl ess t he tr i a l c ourtsust ai ns speci al except i ons t o t he pl eadi ngs. Te x. R. Ci v. P. 185. W h e n a p la in t if fp r o p e r lyc o m p lie s w it h ru le 1 8 5 , a d e f e n d a n tm u s tf ile a s w o r n d e n i a l to d e fe n d a g a i n s t th e p l a i n ti ff’s p ri m a fa c i e c l a i m . Pand iti v. A p o s tle , 1 8 0 S .W .3 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 6

– 2 7 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); seeRi zk
v. Fi n. G uardi

an I ns. A gency, I

nc. , 584 S. W . 2d 860, 862 ( Te x. 1979 ) ( expl ai ni ng t hata ver i f i ed deni al “dest r oys t he evi denti ar y ef f ectoft he i t em i zed a c c o u n t a t t a c h e d t o t h e p e t it io n a n d f o r c e s t h e p la in t if ft o p u to n p r o o fo fh is cl ai m ”) . W hen a pl ai nt i f fd o e s n o t com pl y w i t h t he r ul e, an unsw or n gener al d e n i a l i s a s u fficie n t i n i ti a l re s p o n s e to th e c l a i m . S e eBa b wa hv. Mem ’l City G en. Hosp. Cor

p. , N o. 14- 93- 002 40- C V , 1 9 9 4 W L 3 557 1, at*1 n. 1 ( Tex.7

A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h D i st . ] Feb . 10, 199 4, no w r i t ) ( not des i gna t ed f or p u b l i c a ti o n ). Thus , underei t heroft hes e s ce nar i os , a def end antm ay neg at e a pl ea di ng o n a n it e m iz e d a c c o u n ta n d f o r c e t h e p la i n t if ft o p u to n p r o o fo fit s c la im . United Bus. Machs. v. Entm ’tMkt g. , I nc. , 792 S . W . 2 d 2 62, 263– 64 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s t o n [1 s t D is t .] 1 9 9 0 , n o w r it ). H o w e v e r , a p la in t if fc a n s t ill p r o p e r ly
r ec ove rs um m ary j udgm enti n s uch a ca se i fi tf i l esl ega l an d c om pet ent su m m ary j udgm entev i den cees t abl i sh i ng t he val i di t y ofi t s cl ai m asa m att erof l a w . S e eid . a t 2 6 4 ; se e al soBi rdwel l v. Texi nsCreditUni

on , 843 S. W . 2d 246, 248 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 199 2, no w r i t ) ( exa m i ni ng r ul e 185 and di st i ngui sh i ng be t w ee n a j udgm entaw ar ded on t he bas i s oft hatr ul e a nd a j udg m ent aw ar ded on t he basi s ofa separ at e sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i on) . Such i s t he case her e. T e x o m a fi l e d an u n sw o rn p e titio n w i th co p i e s o f t h e l o a n d o c u m e n ts a ttac h e d . La ter, T e x o m a fi l e d a s e p a rate m o ti o n for su m m a ry j u d g m e n t w i th t he Thom as on af f i dav i t and t he sa m e l oan doc um ent s att ac hed ; Texo m a d i d not
m ovef orj udgm entba se d s ol el y on i t s pet i t i on. W a l l a n d e r h a s n o t d i re c te d u s to a n yc a s e s i n d i c a ti n g th a t a p l a i n ti ff’s f ai l ur e t o f ol l ow t he pl ea di ng st and ar ds ofr ul e 18 5 pr ec l ude s t hatpl ai nt i f ff r om5 ... Ener nati onal C or p. v. E xploitati

on Eng’ r s, I nc. , w hi ch i s r el i ed upon by W a l l a n d e r i n h i s b ri e f, reg a rde d o n l ya s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t o nth ep le a d i ngs bas ed on c om pl i anc e w i t h r ul e 185; i tdi d notco nce r n a s epa r at el y- f i l ed and in d e p e n d e n t ly -s u p p o rt e d s u m m a r yju d g m e n tm o t io n u n d e ro t h e rru le s o fc iv il p r o c e d u r e . 7 0 5 S .W .2 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 0 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [ 1 s tD is t . ] 1 9 8 6 , w r it re f’d n .r.e .).

6 ... A l t hough W al l and er ’ s ar gum ent on app ea l r el i es on t hes e s ec t i ons , he di d notdi sc us s orev en ci t e e i t herpr ovi si on i n hi s t w o- pag e su m m ary j udgm ent r e s p o n s e a tt r ia l. 8 l at ersucc es sf ul l y l i t i gat i ng a s epa r at e s um m ary j udgm entm ot i on. 5 Ther ef or e, even i fTexo m a’ s pet i t i on w as noti n i ti a l l y com pl i antw i t h r ul e 18 5, t hat
n o n c o m p l i a n c e i s i m m a teri a l to th e tr i a l co u rt ’s d e c i sion to g ran t i ts s u b s e q u e n tl y -fi l e d s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t m o ti o n . S e eBird well, 84 3 S . W . 2d at 2 4 8 ; United Bus. Machs . , 792 S. W . 2d at 264 . W e ove r r ul e W al l and er ’ s se con d i ssue. S t at ut ory r equi r em ent s rel at ed t o t he com m erci alr easonabl eness ofTexo m a’ s sal e ofW al l ander ’ s car In h i s f i rs t, th i rd , a n d f o u rth is s u e s , W a l l a n d e r a rg u e s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt er r ed i n gr ant i ng T exom a’ s m ot i on because Texom a f ai l ed t o pr ove com m er ci al
r easonabl eness i n accor dance w i t h s ect i ons oft he busi ness and com m er ce cod e. Sect i on 9. 610 of t he bus i nes s and com m er ce cod e r ega r ds di sp os i t i on ofcol l at er al aft erdef aul t( i ncl udi ng t he r equi r em entofcom m er ci al
r ea so nab l ene ss ) , an d s ec t i on 9. 611 co nce r ns not i f i ca t i on be f or e d i sp os al of c ol l a t e r a l . Te x. Bu s . & C om . Cod e Ann . §§ 9 . 610–. 611. 6T h e s e s t a tu to ry7 ... For m er sect i on 9. 50 4 of t he busi ness and com m er ce code has been

e q u a te d to c u rre n t s e c ti o n s 9 .6 1 0 a n d 9 .6 1 1 . See CaprockI nv. Cor p. v. F. D. I. C. , 1 7 S .W .3 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 2

– 1 3 (T e x . A p p .— E a s tl a n d 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 9 r equ i r em ent s ar e i n t he nat ur e o fco ndi t i onst o a credi t or ’ s r ec ove r y i n a d e fi c i e n c ys u i t. S e eGre a th o us ev. Ch a rter Na t ’ l Ba n k
- S w. , 851 S. W . 2d 173, 1 7 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 2 ). H ow ever , “[ i ] n a sui tbr oug ht by a secur ed cr edi t or t o r ecovera def i ci ency f ol l ow i ng t he sa l e o fco l l at er al , i fa cr edi t orpl ea ds t hatal l co ndi t i onspr ec ede nt h a v e b e e n p e rf o rm e d o r ha v e o c c u rre d , i t i s re q u i red to p rov e tha t i ts di sp os i t i on of t he col l at er al w as com m er ci al l y r ea so nab l e onl y i f t he de bt or speci f i cal l y deni es i ti n hi s answ er . ” A l Gai l ani v. Riyad Bank, Houston A gency , 144 S. W . 3d 1, 3 ( Tex. A pp. — El Pas o 2003, pe t . d en i ed ) ( ci t i ng Greathouse , 851 S. W . 2d at176– 77) . As t he San Ant oni o c ourtofap pea l s exp l ai ned , Fora cr edi t ort o r ecov er i n a de f i ci enc y s ui t , he m us tpr es ent evi de nc e show i ng t he com m erci al rea so nab lenessof

the di sp ositi on of the col

l ateral and noti

f i cati on of the di

spositi on to the debtor

as requi red by s tatu te . P r i ort o t he1992 Greathousede ci si on, t he Texa s cou rt s ofap pea l s w er e s pl i tast o w het hert he credi t or car r i ed t he bur den t o pr ove com m er ci al r easonabl eness orw het her c o m m e r c ia l u n r e a s o n a b le n e s s w a s a d e f e n s e . T o d a y , itis w e ll-s e tt le d t h a tt h e c r e d it o rc a r r ie s t h e b u r d e n : “ A c o m m e r c ia lly rea so n a b l e d i sp o sit i o n o f co l l a tera l i s i n the n a tu re o f a c o n d i ti o n to a c r edi t or ’ s r ec ove r y i n a def i ci enc y s ui t . ” “ The on l y l i m i t s on t he cr edi t or ’ s di sp os i t i on oft he col l at er al i s t hati tm us tbe com m er ci al l y r ea so nab l e, an d m us tbe m adeonl y a f t ernot i f i ca t i on t o t hed e bt ori fr e qu i r e d bys e c t i on 9. 504. 7 T h e n a n d o n lyt h e n is he ent i t l ed t o sue f ora def i ci ency. ” The creditor ’ s burdencan be10

m et by plea di

ng specif

i ca l ly or aver r i ng gener

al ly that al l co nditi ons p rec e den t ha veb e enm e t. F r i e d m a n v. Atl. F

un d i ngCor p. , 93 6 S . W . 2d 38 , 40 –4 1 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A n to n i o 1 9 9 6 , n o w ri t) (c i ta ti o n s a n d f o o t n o te s o m i tte d ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); se e McGee v. D ee re & Co. , No. 03- 04- 00222

- CV , 2005 W L6705 05, a t*2 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n M ar . 24, 2005 , pe t . de ni ed) ( m em . op. ) ( exp l ai ni ng t hatt he “b ur den ofshow i ng c om m er ci al l y r ea so nab l e d i sp os i t i on ofco l l at er al an d not i f i ca t i on ofdi sp os i t i on t o de bt orca n bem etby pl ea di ng s pec i f i ca l l y or aver r i ng gen er al l y t hatal l condi t i ons pr ecedent t o def i ci ency sui thave been
m e t” ); see al

so T e x . R . C i v . P . 5 4 ( sta ti n g tha t i n p l e a d i n g p e rf o rm a n c e o f a con di t i on pr ec ede nt , “i t sh al l be su f f i ci ent t o ave r gen er al l y t hatal l co ndi t i ons pr ec ede ntha ve bee n pe r f or m ed orha ve occ ur r ed. W hen s uch perf or m anc esor o c c u rr e n c e s h a v e b e e n so p l e d , th e p a rt yso p l e a d i n g sa m e sh a l l b e req u i red to p ro v e o n l ys u c h o f th e m a s a re s p e c i fi c a l l yd e n i e d b yth e o p p o s i te p a rty ” ). I n i t s pet i t i on, Texo m a a l l ege d, “ A l l co ndi t i onspr ec ede ntt o [ t he] r i ghtof
r ecover y on t hi s cl ai m have occur r ed orhave been perf or m ed. ” W al l ander ans w er ed w i t h a ge ner al de ni al . Bec aus e W al l ander d i d nots pec i f i ca l l y de ny t he occ ur r enc e o ft he st at ut or y c ondi t i ons , Texo m a’ s pl ea di ng i s su f f i ci ent , an d
n o p ro o f i s n e e d e d . S ee Greathouse , 8 5 1 S .W .2 d a t 1 7 6

– 7 7 ; A l Gai l ani, 144 S .W .3 d a t 3 ; Fr

i edm an , 9 3 6 S .W .2 d a t 4 0

– 4 1 ; c f. L i s ter v. L e e -S wo ffo rd In vs .,8 ... W e n o te th a t T h o m a s o n ’s a ffid a v itd e m o n s tra te d T e x o m a ’s

com pl i anc e w i t h t he bus i nes s and com m er ce code. I n t he af f i dav i t , he s t at ed, I am [ ] f am i l i ar w i t h t he r equ i r em ent s i m pos ed upon a c r edi t orf or a c o m m e r c ia lly r e a s o n a b le s a le a n d d is p o s it io n o f c o lla t e r a l in keepi ng w i t h A rt i cl e 9 of t he Tex as Bu si ness and Co m m er ce C ode. I am f ami l i a rw i t h w h a ta r e t h e r e a s o n a b l e , o r d i n a r ya n d p r u d e nt com m er ci a l p r a c t i c e s o fa l e nd e ri n s uc h s i t ua t i on s . I h a veb een i nvol ved i n r epo ss es si onsan d r es al e o fve hi cl eson n um er ous occ as i onsan d I am aw ar e o ft he bes tpr oce dur e a vai l abl e f ol l ow i ng d e fau l t i n o rde r to o b tai n th e h i g h e st p ri c e fo r s u c h v e h i c l e s a n d to d i s p o s e o f th e m i n a c o m m e rc i a l l yre a s o n a b l e m a n n e r. A n e m pl oye e o ft he cr edi tuni on pr evi ous l y e xam i ned t he v e h i c l e h e l d a s c o l l a te ra l fo r th e l o a n i n v o l v e d i n th i s l a w s u i t . . . . A l l ef f ort s w er e m adet o obt ai n t he hi ghe stva l ue att he t i m e o ft he sa l e o ft he col l at er al an d t o co nduc ts uch s al e . . . i n a com m er ci al l y r easonabl e m anner . The [ vehi cl e w as sol d] f ora net val ue of$2 , 60 8. 00 and cr edi tw as appl i ed accor di ngl y t o t he l oan bal anc esow ed by [ W al l and er ] . The pr oce dur esus ed i n t he sa l e o f t he col l at er al w er e condu ct ed i n a com m er ci al l y r easonabl e m anner as r equi r ed by t he C ode. T h o m a s o n ’s a f f id a v ita l s o r e c it e d t h a tT e x o m a h a d a llo w e d W a lla n d e r“ a ll p a y m e n ts , o ffs e ts [,] an d c re d i ts .” 11 L. L. P. , 195 S . W . 3d 746, 748 ( Tex. A pp. — A m ar i l l o 2 006 , no p et . ) ( ana l yz i ng se ct i on 9. 610 an d s t at i ng t hatbe ca us e t he def end ant s r ai se d t he i ss ue oft he com m er ci al r easo na bl en es s oft he sa l e o ft he col l at er al i n t hei rpl ea di ngs , t he p la in t if fb o r e t h e b u r d e n a tt r ia l t o p r o v e t h a tit s s a le w a s c o m m e r c ia lly re a s o n a b l e ). 89 ... PartofW al l ander ’ s f i f t h i ssue al so concer ns the com m er ci al

r e a s o n a b le n e s s o fT e x o m a ’s s a le o fh is c a r . F o rt h e s a m e r e a s o n s , w e o v e r r u le t hatport i on of hi s f i f t h i ssue. 12 W e t her ef or e over r ul e W al l ander ’ s f i r st , t hi r d, and f ourt h i ssues. 9 Th e di scr epancy o ft he sum m ary j udg m entevi dence on dam ages Fi nal l y, i n t he r em ai nderofh i s f i f t h i ssue, W al l anderar gues t hatt he t r i al cou rter r ed by gr ant i ng Tex om a’ s m ot i on be ca us e h e d em ons t r at ed t he exi st ence of a genu i ne i ssue of m at er i al f act . Th e part i es agr ee t hatW al l ander ent er ed i nt o t he l oan t r ansact i on w i t h T exom a, t hatW al l ander’s car w as r epo ss es se d a nd s ol d, an d t hat the sal espr i ce w asl es s t han t he deb tow ed. How e ve r , a s i s d e s c r i be d a bo ve , t hes um m a r y j ud gm e ntr e c or d contai ns a d i s c re p a n c ya b o u t th e a m o u n t fo r w h i c h th e c a rw a s s o ld , w i th W a l l a n d e r’s su m m ary j udgm entpr oofi ndi ca t i ng a l ar gerr es ul t i ng de f i ci enc y. W a l l a nd e rf i l e d a l e t t e r f r om Te xo m a s t a t i ng t he c a rw a s s ol d f or$200 . Tex om a f i l ed Th om ason’ s af f i davi t st at i ng t he carw as sol d f or$2 , 60 8. Thu s, t h e a m o u n tu s e d b yT e x o m a a s a n o f f s e tf o rW a lla n d e r ’s o u t s t a n d in g d e b tis ac t ual l y hi

gher th a n t hatused by W al l ander , gi vi ng W al l andera l ar ger c r e d it agai nsthi s debtand l eavi ng hi m w i t h a sm al ler de f i ci enc y. Eve n i ft he pr i cedi f f er enc e i s a f ac t i ss ue, i t i s not m at er i al . I tdoe s not af f ec tt he dec i si on oft he ca seo n i t s m er i t s and ac t ual l y w ei ghsi n f avo rof10 ... Texo m a has notcom pl ai ned t hati ti s ow ed m or e. 13 W al l ander . W e concl ude and hol d t hatt he sum m ar y j udg m entm ustbe af f i r m ed bec aus e t he evi den cei ndi ca t est hatTexo m a i s ent i t l ed t o atleastt he am ount o f da m a g e s c o n tai n e d i n the j u d g m e n t. 10 S ee D . G . Bros. v. Pi zza I nn, I nc. , N o. 06- 98- 00151

- CV , 2000 W L1647 0, a t*5 ( Te x. App . — Tex ar k a na J a n. 12, 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); United Bus. Machs. , 7 92 S .W .2 d a t 2 6 5 ; cf

. Roadsi

de Stati ons, I nc. v. 7HBF, Ltd. , 904 S. W . 2d 927, 933 ( Tex. A pp . — FortW ort h 1995, no w r i t ) ( r eve r si ng a s um m ary j udgm ent bec aus e t he app el l ee s di d notpr ove t he am ountofda m age s ent er ed i n t he j udg m ent ) . W e t her ef or e over r ul e W al l ander ’ s f i f t h i ssue. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o fW a l l a n d e r’si s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 11, 2009