No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals 

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas 

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX 

Appellant, 

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

Appellees. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024 

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

KARLA HUERTAS, SBN: 24087765 

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280 

GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC. 

1201 Spyglass Drive, Suite 100 

Austin, Texas 78746 

Phone: 512-444-4529 

Fax: 512-545-4279 

Firm@GammonLawOffice.com 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00350-CV

8083814

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/3/2015 6:50:20 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/3/2015 6:50:20 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 2 OF 22

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellants,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

KARLA HUERTAS, SBN: 24087765

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280

GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC.

1201 Spyglass Drive, Suite 100

Austin, Texas 78746

Phone: 512-444-4529

Fax: 512-545-4279

Firm@GammonLawOffice.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 3 OF 22

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

Appellants: Appellants’ Counsel:

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280

KARLA HUERTAS, SBN: 24087765

GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC.

1201 Spyglass Drive, Suite 100

Austin, Texas 78746

Phone: 512-444-4529

Fax: 512-545-4279

Firm@GammonLawOffice.com

Appellee: Appellee’s Counsel: 

 Sarah S. Robbins, SBN: 24074966

Hughes, Watters & Askanase, LLP

333 Clay, 29th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 713.759.0818

Facsimile: 713.759.6834

ssr@hwallp.com

Gerald R. Haddox and

Sharon Haddox

Federal National Mortgage

Association
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 4 OF 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL............................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................6

RECOMMENDATION ON ORAL ARGUMENT .................................7

ISSUES PRESENTED................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................8

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.........................................12

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................12

A. Standard of Review...............................................................12

B. The County Court lacked jurisdiction..............................14

C. Collateral estoppel bars FNMA from bringing 

the present forcible detainer action......................................20

PRAYER ....................................................................................................21

APPENDIX ...............................................................................................23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................22

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .....................................................22
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 5 OF 22

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASES

Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex. 1984) 21

Collins v. Ison-Newsome, 73 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Tex. 2001) 17

Freedom Communs., Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623

(Tex. 2012) 18

Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. 2001) 17

Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990) 14

Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of Dequeen,

325 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex. 2010) 16, 18

TEXAS COURTS OF APPEALS CASES

Charleston v. Allen, 420 S.W.3d 134

(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2012, no pet. h.) 17

Doncer v. Dickerson, 81 S.W.3d 349

(Tex. App. – El Paso 2002, no pet.) 15

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Watson, 377 S.W.3d 766

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, pet. dism'd) 19

In re H.C.S., 219 S.W.3d 33 

(Tex. App. – San Antonio 2006, no pet.) 15

Mays v. Pierce, 203 S.W.3d 564

(Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) 14

Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. City of Dripping Springs,

304 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App.-Austin 2010) 13, 15 

TEXAS RULES

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.7 17

Tex. R. Evid. 301(b) 18

TEXAS CODES AND STATUTES 

Tex. Business Organizations Code §153.309(a)(1) 15

Tex. Business Organizations Code §153.309(a)(2) 15

Tex. Business Organizations Code §9.251 16, 17, 18, 19

Tex. Business Organizations Code § 1.002(28) 18

Tex. Local Government Code §192.007(a) 10, 20 
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 6 OF 22

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1.01 On May 2, 2014, Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”)

filed a forcible detainer action against the Appellants Gerald R. Haddox and Sharon 

Haddox (“Appellants” and/or “Haddoxes”).

1

1.02 On May 20, 2014, Appellants filed their Original Answer, Plea to the 

Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss. Following a hearing on May 22, 2014, 

Appellants’ motion was granted and the court entered an Order dismissing 

Appellee’s case.2

1.03 On May 27, 2014, Appellee appealed the justice court’s decision in this 

forcible detainer action to the county court at law.

1.04 A trial was held de novo on December 5, 2014 during which the trial court 

entered an Order dismissing Appellee’s case with prejudice.3

1.05 Appellee filed a motion for new trial on December 18, 2014 and, following a 

hearing on January 6, 2015, the motion was granted on January 12, 2015.4

1.06 The case proceeded to a second de novo trial and on May 29, 2015 Judge Eric 

M. Shepperd entered his Order awarding possession of the property to Appellee.

5

It 

is from this Order that the Haddoxes appeal.

 

1

 (CR 63 - 83)

2

(CR 18)

3

(CR 117)

4

(CR 169)

5

(CR 207-208)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 7 OF 22

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellants suggest that the issues presented should not be determined on the 

record alone and that oral argument is necessary. The issues presented have become

sufficiently muddled by misinterpretation and the law sufficiently misapplied that 

oral argument would benefit the panel.

/s/ William B. Gammon

William B. Gammon
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 8 OF 22

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellants, Gerald R. Haddox and Sharon Haddox, plead that this honorable 

Court of Appeals reverse the judgment of the Travis County Court at Law Number 

2 and render judgment in favor of Appellants.

ISSUES PRESENTED

2.01 Did the County Court have jurisdiction to determine right of possession when 

Appellee lacked standing to maintain its forcible detainer action against Appellants?

2.02 Does the doctrine of collateral estoppel bar Appellee from bringing the present 

suit which involves the same parties, issues and subject matter previously litigated 

in three other forcible detainer actions? 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3.01 On or about August 27, 1999, Appellants purchased the real property at 6508 

Taylorcrest Drive, Austin, Travis County, Texas 78749 (the “Property”). They

financed the purchase with a loan from National Mortgagelink I, Ltd. (“National 

Mortgagelink”), a Texas Limited Partnership (hereinafter “the Lender”), for 

$184,320.00, giving a 30 year fixed rate note (“the Note”) to the Lender in return.

As security for the note, Appellants executed a deed of trust in favor of the Lender.

6

 

3.02 On July 7, 2006 the Office of the Texas Secretary of State notified National 

Mortgagelink that the entity’s right to conduct affairs in the state of Texas had been 

 

6

(CR 74 - 80)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 9 OF 22

forfeited.

7 National Mortgagelink did not revive its right to transact business. 

3.03 On November 8, 2006, the Secretary of State cancelled the right of the limited 

partnership to transact business. 

3.04 Despite thus fading from existence, FNMA claims that at some point 

thereafter National Mortgagelink assigned the mortgage to Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, 

Successor to IndyMac Bank, FSB.

3.05 No such assignment was ever recorded as required under §192.007(a) of the 

Local Government Code.8In fact, FDIC instead filed an “Affidavit of Lost 

Assignment” in the property records of Travis County, Texas claiming that FDIC 

was the current mortgagee but admitting it could not produce any assignment, 

recorded or unrecorded, to prove that claim.

9 This “Affidavit of Lost Assignment” 

is a fictional device invented by FDIC and is wholly insufficient to establish an 

assignment of the mortgage. 

3.06 On June 22, 2010, the same day the “Affidavit of Lost Assignment” was 

recorded, Bryan Bly, a notorious robo-signer at a document mill in Florida, allegedly 

 

7

(RR Vol.4, p. 33-34)

8 Sec. 192.007. Records of Releases and Other Actions.

(a) To release, transfer, assign, or take another action relating to an instrument that 

is filed, registered, or recorded in the office of the county clerk, a person must file, 

register, or record another instrument relating to the action in the same manner as 

the original instrument was required to be filed, registered, or recorded.

9

(RR Vol.4, p. 30)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 10 OF 22

acting on behalf of FDIC, recorded a “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust” 

assigning Appellants’ mortgage to OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest Bank”).10 

3.07 On July 12, 2011 Hughes, Watters & Askanase recorded a “Notice of 

Substitute Trustee’s Sale” on behalf of OneWest Bank setting the sale for August 2, 

2011. Appellee FNMA claims to have acquired the Property at this foreclosure sale.

3.08 Ten days later, OneWest Bank recorded an “Appointment of Substitute 

Trustee” stating it appointed the substitute on February 8, 2010. Incredibly, this date 

is more than 4 months before OneWest claims to have acquired ownership of 

Appellants’ mortgage. Thus, it is a void action for lack of authority.

3.09 On August 12, 2011, Hughes Watters & Askanase recorded a “Substitute 

Trustees Deed” in the official property records of Travis County.

11

3.10 On August 24, 2011, Appellee filed a forcible detainer action against the 

Appellants (Cause No. 051621). The case was dismissed on appeal in County Court 

at Law No. 2, Travis County, Texas.

3.11 On or about August 2012, Appellee filed a second forcible detainer action 

against the Appellants (Cause No. 053364). On appeal in County Court at Law No. 

2., the court granted Appellants’ Plea to the Jurisdiction for lack of standing pursuant 

to Tex. Business Organizations Code § 153.309 and dismissed the suit.

12 On January 

 

10 (RR Vol.4, p. 28)

11 (CR 130 – 133)

12 (CR 177)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 11 OF 22

23, 2013, the Court denied Appellee’s Motion for Reconsideration.

13

3.12 On November 20, 2013, Appellee filed a third forcible detainer action against 

the Appellants (Cause No. 056393). The Appellants filed a motion to dismiss 

asserting that the Court has already ruled that Appellees lack standing to maintain 

the action and thus the doctrine of res judicata bars Appellee’s request for relief. The 

court agreed with Appellant’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the case and awarded 

sanctions and attorney’s fees to the Appellants.

14

 

3.13 On May 2, 2014, Appellee filed a fourth forcible detainer action against the 

Appellants (Cause No. 057256).

15 Appellants again filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction 

and Motion to Dismiss.

16 The court again found that Appellants’ Plea to the 

Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss were meritorious and dismissed the case.

17

3.14 On May 27, 2014, Appellee appealed the court’s decision to the county court 

at law. A trial was held de novo on December 5, 2014 during which the trial court 

entered an Order dismissing Appellee’s case with prejudice and awarding attorney’s 

fees to the Appellants.

18

3.15 Appellee filed a motion for new trial on December 18, 2014, which was 

 

13 (CR 178)

14 (CR 182)

15 (CR 63 - 83)

16 (CR 34 – 50)

17 (CR 18)

18 (CR 117)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 12 OF 22

granted on January 12, 2015.19

3.16 The case proceeded to a second de novo trial and on May 29, 2015 Judge Eric 

M. Shepperd entered his Order awarding possession of the property to Appellee.

20 It 

is from this Order that the Haddoxes appeal.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

4.01 Appellee lacks standing to maintain the present action because 1) National 

Mortgagelink forfeited its right to transact business in Texas barring Appellee from 

filing suit in the state of Texas pursuant to Tex. Business Organizations Code § 

153.309; and 2) National Mortgagelink, the original noteholder, never subsequently 

assigned the Note, as the right to litigate comes by assignment, Appellee does not 

have standing to sue Appellants.

4.02 Since the present case involves the same parties, issues and subject matter as 

the three previous forcible detainer cases, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the 

Appellant from bringing the present suit and the final judgment is void as a matter 

of law. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Standard of Review

5.01 The court reviews de novo whether the lower court had subject-

 

19 (CR 169)

20 (CR 207-208)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 13 OF 22

matter jurisdiction and whether the Appellee has alleged facts that affirmatively 

demonstrate subject-matter jurisdiction. Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. City of

Dripping Springs, 304 S.W.3d 871, 877 (Tex. App. Austin 2010). The court is not 

to consider the merits of Appellee’s claims beyond the extent necessary to resolve 

the jurisdiction issue. Id.

5.02 In order for the court to uphold the County Court’s ruling, it must find that the 

point of error alleged by Appellants is not meritorious.

In a nonjury trial, when no findings of fact or conclusions 

of law are filed or properly requested, it is implied that the 

trial court made all the necessary findings to support its

judgment. Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281, 32 

Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 337 (Tex. 1989);see Pharo v. Chambers 

Cty., 922 S.W.2d 945, 948, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 614 (Tex. 

1996)(stating that, in a bench trial in which the trial court 

does not file findings of fact or conclusions of law, 

appellate courts presume the trial court made all findings 

in support of its judgment). Nevertheless, because a 

complete reporter's record is a part of the appellate record 

in this case, appellants may challenge both the legal and 

factual sufficiency of the trial court's findings. See 

Roberson, 768 S.W.2d at 281. We apply the same

standards of review to these challenges as those applied in

review of jury findings. See id.

Mays v. Pierce, 203 S.W.3d 564, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 8374 (Tex. App. 

Houston [14th Dist.] 2006).
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 14 OF 22

B. The County Court lacked jurisdiction to enter an Order because 

FNMA does not have standing.

1. Tex. Business Organizations Code §153.309 precludes FNMA from 

maintaining the present suit.

5.03 FNMA, as a successor/assignee of National Mortgagelink, has no right to 

judgment in a Texas court, because FNMA lacks standing. “A judgment is void if it 

is apparent that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties, 

no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to render the judgment, or no 

capacity to act as a court.” Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990).

5.04 “Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a 

case, and standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Save Our Springs 

Alliance, Inc., 304 S.W.3d 871 at 878. As an element of subject-matter jurisdiction, 

standing is an issue that can be raised at any time. In re H.C.S., 219 S.W.3d 33, 34 

(Tex. App. – San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Standing is a question of law for 

determination by the court. Doncer v. Dickerson, 81 S.W.3d 349, 358 (Tex. App. –

El Paso 2002, no pet.). In determining whether FNMA had standing, the court must 

determine whether FNMA is allowed to bring the present lawsuit. Id.

5.05 When National Mortgagelink forfeited its right to transact business in Texas 

it rendered National Mortgagelink, and thus FNMA, incapable of maintaining a suit 

against the Appellants in the State of Texas. Appellee lacks standing pursuant to 

Tex. Business Organizations Code §153.309(a)(1) and (2). Tex. Business 
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 15 OF 22

Organizations Code §153.309 (a)(1) and (2), entitled “Effect of Forfeiture of Right 

to Transact Business,” state:

(a) Unless the right of the limited partnership to transact 

business is revived in accordance with Section 153.310:

(1) the limited partnership may not maintain an 

action, suit, or proceeding in a court of this state; and

(2) a successor or assignee of the limited 

partnership may not maintain an action, suit, or proceeding 

in a court of this state on a right, claim, or demand arising 

from the transaction of business by the limited partnership 

in this state.

5.06 In construing a statute the court’s primary objective is to give effect to the 

Legislature's intent. Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of Dequeen, 325

S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex. 2010). The legislature’s intent is ascertained based on the 

plain meaning of the text. Id. It is presumed that “the Legislature selected language 

in a statute with care and that every word or phrase was used with a purpose in 

mind.” Id. The plain language in Tex. Business Organizations Code §153.309 (a)(1) 

and (2) clearly states that when a limited partnership forfeits its right to transact 

business in Texas neither it nor its successors/assignees may maintain an action or 

suit in a Texas court on a claim arising from business transacted in Texas.

5.07 It is an undisputed fact that the Texas Secretary of State terminated National 

Mortgagelink’s right to transact business in Texas.21 National Mortgagelink did not 

 

21 (RR Vol.4, p. 33-34)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 16 OF 22

revive its right to transact business in Texas. Therefore, neither National 

Mortgagelink nor FNMA, as a successor/assignee of National Mortgagelink, can

maintain the present suit and any Order entered in this case granting relief to FNMA 

is void as a matter of law. 

5.08 Appellee alleges that it has standing to maintain this suit pursuant to Tex. 

Business Organizations Code §9.251. §9.251 enumerates activities conducted by 

foreign entities that do not constitute as the “transaction of business” in Texas. In 

support of its argument Appellant relies, virtually exclusively, on an unpublished 

case from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas2223. 

However, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.7, “unpublished 

opinions have no precedential value and must not be cited as authority by counsel or 

by a court.” Collins v. Ison-Newsome, 73 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Tex. 2001). Furthermore, 

this is a federal case ergo it is not binding on this court. Charleston v. Allen, 420

S.W.3d 134, 137 n.6 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2012, no pet. h.) (“[O]pinions of 

the federal circuits are not binding on state courts.”). 

5.09 Appellee’s argument fails to acknowledge that chapter 9 of the Business 

Organization Code applies specifically, and only, to foreign entities. In fact the title 

of chapter 9 is “Foreign Entities.” Furthermore, the very first sentence of §9.251 is: 

 

22 Hofrock v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. A-13-CV-1013-LY.

23 (RR Vol. 3, page 21, line 8-18) Due to a typographical error, the Reporter’s Record spells 

“Hofrock” as “Hoffrau”.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 17 OF 22

“For purposes of this chapter, activities that do not constitute transaction of 

business in this state include. . .” (emphasis added). 

5.10 Although the Legislature expressly and unambiguously stated that §9.251 is 

to be applied only to foreign entities, the lower court erroneously applied the statute 

to National Mortgagelink, a domestic partnership. The court is required to “consider 

the statute as a whole.” Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex.

2001). It cannot choose to apply an isolated provision in a statute and disregard the 

remaining language in the statute. Id.

5.11 Based on the language of the statutes, it is evident that the Legislature intended

§9.251 to be applied to chapter 9 only and not to the entire Texas Business 

Organizations Code as Appellee contends.

5.12 National Mortgagelink is not a foreign entity. The definition of a foreign entity 

is “an organization formed under, and the internal affairs of which are governed by, 

the laws of a jurisdiction other than this state.” Tex. Business Organizations Code §

1.002(28). The court is bound to construe the term “foreign entity” to mean what the 

Legislature defined it to mean. Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of Dequeen,

325 S.W.3d 628, 637 (Tex. 2010). National Mortgagelink was formed in Texas and 

the Partnership Agreement filed with the Texas Secretary of State by National 

Mortgagelink specifically states it is to be governed by the laws of the State of 
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 18 OF 22

Texas.24

5.13 Thus, chapter 9 of the Business Organization Code does not apply in this case 

and Appellee may not rely on the exceptions laid out in this chapter. On the other 

hand, Chapter 153 of the Texas Business Organization Code applies to limited 

partnerships. 

5.14 The Legislature has chosen to draft two completely different and distinct 

chapters to distinguish from the statutes that apply to domestic limited partnerships

and the statutes that apply to foreign entities. To interpret §9.251 in conjunction with 

§153.309 would result in conflicting law. 

5.15 Therefore, it is clear that Business Organizations Code §9.251 does not apply. 

5.16 The plain language in Tex. Business Organizations Code §153.309 precludes

FNMA, as a successor/assignee of National Mortgagelink, from maintaining the 

present suit and any Order entered in this case granting relief to FNMA is void as a 

matter of law. 

2. FNMA has not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate standing to sue 

Appellants.

5.17 Even if National Mortgagelink had not forfeited its right to transact business 

 

24 Appellants respectfully request this court take judicial notice of the Partnership Agreement 

attached hereto in Appendix 1. Pursuant to Tex. R. Evid. 301(b), “[a]n appellate court may take 

judicial notice of a relevant fact that is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction 

of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Freedom Communs., Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d

621, 623 (Tex. 2012) (citations omitted). “Judicial notice of such a fact is mandatory if a party 

requests it and supplies the necessary information.” Id (citations omitted).
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 19 OF 22

in Texas, FNMA would still lack standing to pursue the present suit because FNMA 

has not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that it in fact has any interest in the 

Property or that there is any relationship between FNMA and the Haddoxes, 

landlord/tenant or otherwise.

5.18 The “[s]tanding doctrine focuses on whether a party has a sufficient 

relationship with the lawsuit so as to have a justiciable interest in the outcome.”

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Watson, 377 S.W.3d 766, 773 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, 

pet. dism'd). An assignee has standing to assert only those causes of actions 

previously belonging to its assignor. Id. Absolutely no evidence exists to establish

that National Mortgagelink assigned its rights under the Note to FDIC or any other 

subsequent entity. Therefore, no such right was conferred to FNMA, there is no 

relationship between FNMA and the Haddoxes and FNMA has no interest in this 

forcible detainer suit. 

5.19 FNMA alleges that the Note and Deed of Trust were assigned by National 

Mortgagelink to FDIC, but fails to produce any evidence to support its assertion. 

There is no assignment filed in the Travis County public records as required under 

§192.007(a) of the Local Government Code25 and Appellee has never produced an 

 

25 Sec. 192.007. Records of Releases and Other Actions.

(a) To release, transfer, assign, or take another action relating to an instrument that 

is filed, registered, or recorded in the office of the county clerk, a person must file, 

register, or record another instrument relating to the action in the same manner as 

the original instrument was required to be filed, registered, or recorded.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 20 OF 22

assignment. The only evidence proffered by Appellee is an “Affidavit of Lost 

Assignment”.26 This “Affidavit of Lost Assignment” was fabricated by FDIC and is 

wholly insufficient to establish an assignment of the mortgage. The only actual 

purpose the “Affidavit of Lost Assignment” may serve is as a judicial admission by 

FDIC that no assignment exists. Therefore, FDIC had no rights or interest under the 

Note or Deed of Trust to convey to Onewest Bank making it impossible for Onewest 

Bank to assign any rights to FNMA. 

5.20 FNMA is without authority to sue Appellants under the Note and FNMA has 

not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate standing to sue Appellants. Thus, the 

evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the County Court’s 

judgment. 

C. The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars FNMA from bringing the present 

forcible detainer action against the Appellants.

5.21 Although Texas does not give res judicata effect to forcible detainer 

judgments, the doctrine of collateral estoppel still applies. Collateral estoppel is 

narrower than res judicata. Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 818

(Tex. 1984). “It is frequently characterized as issue preclusion because it bars 

relitigation of any ultimate issue of fact actually litigated and essential to the 

judgment in a prior suit, regardless of whether the second suit is based upon the same 

 

26 (RR Vol.4, p. 30)
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 21 OF 22

cause of action.” Id.

5.22 Where it involves the same parties, issues and subject matter, prior judgment 

is treated as an absolute bar to retrial of claims pertaining to the same cause of action. 

Id. 

5.23 This lawsuit, like the three previous forcible detainer actions, involve the same 

parties, the same piece of real property, and the same issues. Therefore, the doctrine 

of collateral estoppel bars Appellee from bringing the present suit. 

PRAYER

Appellants Gerald R. Haddox and Sharon Haddox respectfully request that 

this Court reverse the judgment of the County Court at Law in all things and remand 

for further action consistent with its opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280

KARLA HUERTAS, SBN: 24087765

GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC.

1201 Spyglass Drive, Suite 100

Austin, Texas 78746

Phone: 512-444-4529

Fax: 512-545-4279

Firm@GammonLawOffice.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS

/s/ William B. Gammon
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CAUSE NO.: 03-15-00350-CV

PAGE 22 OF 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been 

served via this court’s ECF system on this 3

rd day of December, 2015 to the 

individuals listed below:

Sarah S. Robbins, SBN: 24074966

Hughes, Watters & Askanase, LLP

333 Clay, 29th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 713.759.0818

Facsimile: 713.759.6834

ssr@hwallp.com

By:_ /s/ William B. Gammon

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

In accordance with Texa Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i) I hereby certify that 

the foregoing Appellant’s Brief contains 2,241words.

By: /s/ William B. Gammon

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280
No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX

Item 1 Judgment of the Trial Court CR 207-208

Item 2 Order of the Justice Court CR 18

Item 3 Gerald R. Haddox’s Original Answer CR 34 – 50

Item 4 Complaint for Forcible Detainer CR 63 - 83

Item 5 Deed of Trust CR 74 – 80

Item 6 Order of the County Court CR 117

Item 7 Substitute Trustee’s Deed CR 130 – 133
Item 8 Order for new trial CR 169

Item 9 Order on plea to the jurisdiction CR 177

Item 10 Order on motion for reconsideration CR 178

Item 11 Order of the Justice Court CR 182

Item 12 Corporate Assignment RR Vol.4, p. 28

Item 13 Affidavit of Lost Assignment RR Vol.4, p. 30

Item 14 Notice of Forfeited Rights RR Vol.4, p. 33-34

Item 15 Certificate of Limited Partnership
No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 1

Judgment of the Trial Court CR 207-208


No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 2

Order of the Justice Court CR 18

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 3

Gerald R. Haddox’s Original Answer CR 34 – 50

















No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 4

Complaint for Forcible Detainer CR 63 - 83





















No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 5

Deed of Trust CR 74 – 80







No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 6

Order of the County Court CR 117

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 7

Substitute Trustee’s Deed CR 130 – 133




No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 8

Order for new trial CR 169

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 9

Order on plea to the jurisdiction CR 177

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 10

Order on motion for reconsideration CR 178

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 11

Order of the Justice Court CR 182

No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 12

Corporate Assignment RR Vol.4, p. 28
11/~llfflll/~lffl~I/WII~IIHI/Iffli~IHI TRV 

2010089111 I PC 

Loan#: 511327 

CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST 

FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the 

undersigned, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC 

FEDERAL BANK,FSB, SUCCESSOR TO INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., WHOSE ADDRESS IS 6900 

BEATRICE DR., KALAMAZOO, M149009, (ASSIGNOR), by these presents does convey, grant. sell, assign, 

transfer and set over the described deed of trust together with the certain note(s) described therein, together with 

all interests secured therehy, all liens, and any rights due or to become due thereon, to One West Bank, FSB, 

WHOSE ADDRESS IS 888 E. WALNUT STREET, PASADENA, CA 91101, ITS SUCCESSORS OR 

ASSIGNS, (ASSIGNEE) 

Said Deed of Trust dated 08/3011999 executed by SHARON HADDOX AND GERALD R. HADDOX and 

recorded as lnstr# 1999098156 in Book , Page in the records of Real Property of TRAVIS County, Texas. 

This assignment is made without recourse, representation or warranty, express or implied, by the FDIC in any 

capacity. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused these to be signed by its duly authorized officer, 

0512812010. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC FEDERAL 

BANK,FSB, SU CESSOR INDYMAC BANK, F .S.B. 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF PINELLAS 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on this day personally appeared 

BRYAN BL Y known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing imtrumcnt and 

acknowledged to me that the same was the act of the said FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK,FSB, SUCCESSOR TO INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., a 

corporation, and that they executed the same as the act of such corporation for the purposes and consideration 

therein expressed, and in the capacity therein stated. 

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE 05128/2010. 

CHRISTOPHESl;.,.,'Y PoNio 

My commission expires:OS/03120 12 

Document Prepared By: Robert E. Fletcher- c/o NTC, 2100 Alt. 19 North, Palm Harbor, FL 34683 (800)346-9152 

When Recorded Return to: 

One West Bank. FSB 

C/0 NTC 2100 Alt. 19 Nonh 

Palm Harbor, FL 34683 

OWBAS Il253194 USB-OWBAS -- CJ2577013 form5/frmtxgl 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 

*11253194* 

2015 

FILED AND RECORDED 

OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS 

tl~ Jun 22, 2010 02:28 PM 

PEREZTA: $16.00 

2010889111 

Dana O.Baauvoir, County Clerk 

Travis County TEXAS 
No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 13

Affidavit of Lost Assignment RR Vol.4, p. 30
.. 

II IIIII 111111111111111111111111111111111/IIIIIIJI 11111111 

TRV 2010089110 ;1;? 

2 PGS Jf 

511327L 

AFFIDAVIT OF LOST ASSIGNMENT 

The undersigned BRYAN BL Y, being duly sworn deposes and states as follows: 

I. That (s)he is alan ATTORNEY-IN-FACT of FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS 

RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK,FSB, SUCCESSOR TO INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. having its 

principle place of business at 6900 BEATRICE DR., KALAMAZOO, MJ 49009 , an officer duly authorized to 

make this affidavit. 

2. That (s)he has personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Affidavit. 

3. That FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORA TlON AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC FEDERAL 

BANK,FSB, SUCCESSOR TO INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. ("Current Mortgagee") is the owner and holder of a 

certain mortgage dated 08/30/1999 made by SHARON HADDOX AND GERALD R. HADDOX as mortgagors to 

NATIONAL MORTGAGELINK, I LTD as original mortgagee, which mortgage was recorded in the office of the 

Register or Recorder/Clerk of TRAVIS County, State of Texas on 09/01/1999 in Book/reel page or Clerk/Doc# 

1999098156. This loan may or may not have been further assigned. 

The mortgage premise are known as: 6508 TA YLORCREST DR, AUSTIN, TX 78749 

4. That Current Mortgagee owns and holds said mortgage as a result of sale and assignment thereof to Current 

Mortgagee from NATIONAL MORTGAGELINK, I LTD ("Mortgagee of Record"). 

5. That the files and records of Current Mortgagee relating to the mortgage do not contain either a recorded or an 

unrecorded instrument of an assignment from Mortgagee of Record to Current Mortgagee. 

6. That the Affiant has concluded that the Assignment was lost, misplaced or destroyed before the same could be 

placed of record. 

7. That Current Mortgagee is unable to obtain an instrument confirming the sale and assignment of said mortgage 

from the Mortgagee of Record. 

8. That Current Mortgagee duly and properly acquired the mortgage, and has thereafter serviced the same and has in 

its possession the Note secured thereby and all of the other mortgage loan documentation pertaining to said 

mortgage. 

9. That Current Mortgagee is the owner of the mortgage and the Note secured thereby, and has not further assigned 

or transferred said Note and mortgage to any other party. 

10. That this affidavit is made to induce the Register/Recorder of said county to accept for recording this instrument, 

executed and acknowledged by Current Mortgagee, in place of said lost, misplaced or destroyed assignment. 

111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 

*11959965* HAR 12 2015 

EXHIIIT 
No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 14

Notice of Forfeited Rights RR Vol.4, p. 33-34
Corpomtions &ction 

P.O.Box 13697 

Austin, Texas 78711-3697 

Office of the Secretary of State 

Carlos Cascos 

Secretary of State 

The undersigned, as Secretary of State ofTexas, does hereby certify that the attached is a true and 

correct copy of each document on file in this office as described below: 

NATIONAL MORTGAGELINK I, LTD. 

Filing Number: 7566210 

Notice of Forfeited Rights for Non-Filing of 

Periodic Report 

July 07, 2006 

Phone: (512) 463-5555 

Prepared by: CTOBAR 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name 

officially and caused to be impressed hereon the Seal of 

State at my office in Austin, Texas on March 12, 2015. 

Carlos Cascos 

Secretary of State 

Come visit us on the internet at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/ 

Fax: (512) 463-5709 Dial: 7-1-1 for Relay Services 

TID: 10266 Document: 595747200002 
lJ~t 

P.O. Box 12028 

Austin, Texas 78711-2028 

Stephen F Sampaulesi 

Office of the Secretary of State 

NATIONAL MORTGAGELINK I, LTD. 

3934 FM 1960 WEST, STE 100 

Houston, TX 77068 

Periodic Report- Second Notification Letter 

Re: NATIONAL MORTGAGELINK I, LTD. 

File Number: 7566210 

Dear Registered Agent: 

Roger Williams 

Secretary of State 

July 7, 2006 

Our records show that the above referenced limited partnership was notified over thirty (30) days ago of the need to 

file with this office the report required by law. You are hereby notified that the limited partnership's right to 

conduct affairs has been forfeited as of the date of this letter for failure to file the report. The limited partnership's 

right to conduct affairs may be revived by submitting the attached periodic report to this office, along with the 

required filing fee. This periodic report should be completed and received by this office on or before November 6, 

2006 to avoid the cancellation or termination of the domestic limited partnership or the cancellation or revocation of 

the registration of the foreign limited partnership. 

One copy of the required periodic report is enclosed, along with instructions for completing the report. Make 

any necessary changes to the preprinted information by typing or printing the new information in the area 

provided. Submit the periodic report, along with the required filing fee that is shown on the attached report, to 

the mailing address on the report form. Please make a copy of this report prior to mailing and retain for the 

limited partnership's records. 

Please disregard this notice if you have mailed your document for processing within the last seven (7) days. If 

your records reflect that you filed the required report, please send a copy of your cancelled check showing 

payment of the filing fee. 

For your convenience, the periodic report may be filed online through SOSDirect at 

http :1/www .sos. state.tx. us/ corp/ sosda/index.s html. 

If you have any questions about filing the periodic report or require assistance filing online using SOSDirect, 

please call 512-475-2705 or e-mail ReportsUnit@sos.state.tx.us. 

Sincerely, 

Reports Unit 

Business and Public Filings Division 

Enclosure 

Phone: 512-475-2705 

Come visit us on the Intemet@ http://www.sos.state.tx.us/ 

Fax: 512-463-1425 Dial: 7-1-1 for Relay Services 
No. 03-15-00350-CV

In The Court of Appeals

For the Third District Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

GERALD R. HADDOX and SHARON HADDOX

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-005024

APPENDIX ITEM 15

Certificate of Limited Partnership