NO. 07-07 -037 4-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU LY21, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ TER RA XX I LTD ., E T A L. , AP PE LL AN TS

V. AG A CC EPTAN CE C OR PORATION , ET A L., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF DE AF SMI T H CO UNT Y; NO . C I- 04B- 011; HO NO RA BLE R OLAN D SAU L, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Back g ro und
In 19 98, A g Ser

v ic es of Ameri ca, Inc . ( Ag Ser v ic es) prov ide d a se rie s o f loans to Vei g e l F a r m P a rt n e rs ( V F P ) , G ra i n C e n t ra l S t a t i o n , a n d Te r ra XX I , L t d

. ( Te r ra )

. I n ex chang e for the funds , Ter ra g ra nted a deed o f t rust to proper

ty l ocat ed i n D eaf Smith Cou ntyin fa v o r

o f A g A c c e p t a n c e C o r p o ra t i o n ( AA C ) a s c o l l a t e ra l

. I n 2 0 0 0 , T e r ra and VFP default ed on the loa n and filed for bank ru ptcy , w hic h c ulmi nated in a bank ru ptcy pl an of reorg aniz ati on for VFP ’s and Terra’s debt( “reorg ani z ati on pl ans” ), i ncl udi ng theThe reorg ani z ati on plan and Agreed Orde r for eac h c ompany are s eparate from 1 the othe r comp any. How ever, beca use the l angua ge cont aine d in the docu me nts fo r Terra and VFP are v ir

tual ly i denti cal , w e w il l col lecti v ely refer t o the two c ompani es’ doc uments as the reorganiz ation plans an d Agreed Orde rs. Some d ocument s rela ti ng to the s ettl ement ag re e m e n t, such a s rati ficat ion of 2 g uaranty and cl ar ify ing orders, w ere s ig ned on lat er da te s, how ev er , al l document ati on provided Octo ber 20 , 200 2 as the ef fective date for the a greem ent s. 2 out stan ding Ag S e rvi c e s’s loans. On Octo ber 20 , 200 2, as pa rt of the ba nkrup tcy proceed ing s, VFP and Terra submi tted Ag re ed Orders o n Obj ect ion of Ag Ser v ic es to t he reorganization plan (“Ag reed Orders”) in each of the tw o ban kruptcy cases wh ic h were approv ed by

the bankr uptcy

co urt. Ba sed on the Agreed O rd ers, the p arti es entered i nto

1 Ag re ed Settl ements

. The re maini ng appel lan ts, Vei g el Cattl e Compan y , Bob V eig el, Inc ., Ste v e Veigel, I n c . , V icki Veigel, Inc., Veigel-Kirk, Inc., Ve igel Farms, Inc., Bo b Veigel, ind ivid ual ly , St ev e Vei g el, i ndi v idu all y , and Grain C entral Stat ion , I nc. del iv ered to Ag Ser v ic es g uaranty

ag re ements as par

t of the settl ement ag re ements

. I n the Ag re ed 2 Orders, Ag Ser

v ic es’ s c lai ms w ere s ecured by a s econd l ien on a ll real proper ty ow ned by Terra i n D eaf Smith C ounty

. In 20 03, Ter ra fail ed to make a l o a n p a yme nt t o F irst Ag C re dit , a super ior lienho lder, w hich w as a con dition of the settle me nt ag reem ent w ith Ag Serv ices. Further, Ag Ser v ic es g av e not ic e tha t t he ad v alo re m tax es on th e proper ti es w ere al so ov erdue. The settl emen t agreements st ated that a defaultby Terra w oul d c onst it ute a defaultby VFP . Henc e, Ag Serv ic es, beli ev ing that T er ra and VFP had defaulted per the settl ement ag re ement, sentout noti ces of default on June 16, 2003. A month later , on Jul y 17, 2003, Ag Se rv ices sento ut not ices of a ccelerat ion con f irming that, beca use o f the failure of

Te rraThe forec los ure not ic e s peci fied that the forecl osure sale w as proceed ing under 3 the dee d of

trust executed byT erra w ith AAC as the b ene f iciary

. AAC is an Ag Servicesrelate d f ina nc i ng c om pa ny rep res en te d by

t he s am e l aw

fi r m a s A g S er

v i c es ’ s c ou ns el. Hen ce, the noti ces of default, ac cel erati on, a nd foreclo su re were actual ly se nt ou t on beh alf of both Ag Services and AAC. 3 and VF P to remedy

the default condi ti ons, the ind ebtedne ss to Ag Ser v ic es w as due and p a y a b l e . F i n a l l y , o n A u g u s t1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , A g S e r v i c e s s e n tT e r ra a n d VFP not i c e o f a foreclosu re sale of

t he Deaf S mith p rope rty

se t for S ept em ber 2, 2 003

. At the foreclosu re 3 sal e, t he enc umbered proper ty w as purchas ed by

AAC for $20, 000. After R ober t Ve ig el and El la Vei g el, w ho resi ded on the proper ty , refused to su rrender the proper

ty , AA C initiate d a forcible de taine r action in justice court to w hich ap pellan ts respon ded w ith a suit in d is t ri c tco u rta l l e g i n g, a m o n g o t h e r a c t s , wro n gf u l fo re c lo s u re o n t h e p ro p e rt y. Appel lan ts’ su itnamed Ag S e rv ic es, AAC , and M ar k H ar mon ( subs ti tute tr ust ee) as defendants. The named defendants fil ed a moti on for summar y j udg ment w hic h prompted appel lan ts to fil e a mot ion for p arti al summa ry ju d gm e nt. H ar mon req uest ed and w as g ra nted a s ev erance of th e c a se s. H ar mon then fil ed for summar y j udg ment w hic h w as gr a n t e d

. A p p e ll a n t s a p p e a le d b u tt h is co u rta f f ir m e d t h e t ri a l c o u rt

. T e rr a XXI , L t d

. v. Har mon, 279 S.W .3d 7 81 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2007, pet. deni ed)

. By separate orders, the tr ial co urt g ra nted summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of Ag Serv ic es and AAC w hil e deny ing the appel lan ts’ moti on for par ti al summar

y j udg ment.
In t he presentca se, appel lan ts appeal rais ing se v en i ss ues. By the firs t t hree is sues , app ell ants co ntend that the t ri al cour t er re d i n deny ing thei r summar y j udg ments and g ra nti ng appel lee s’ summar y jud g ments becau se: (1 ) the s tatut e of li mita ti ons had r un on th e deed of tru st, thereby neg ati ng the forecl osure s ale ; ( 2) the Ag re ed Orders req uired4

re doc umentati on of the pre- bankr uptcy note s a nd deed of tr ustl ien s; and ( 3) appel lee s failed to show tha t the re w ere no g enu ine issues of m ate rial fact regarding the foreclosu re cl ai ms . N ext, as i s s ue s fou r th rou g h s ev en , ap pe l l an ts c on te nd th at th e trial court er ro neous ly

g ra nted appel lee s’ su m m a ryj udg ment bec ause the t ri al cour t er re d i n: ( 4) d is m is s in g a p p e ll a n t s ’ c la im s o f d e c e p t ive t ra d e p ra c t ic e s , p re d a t o ry l e n d in g, u s u ry, tor ti ous int er

ferenc e, an d fail ure to per form an acc ounti ng of the fin anci al deal ing s b etw een the parties; (5) failing to recognize app ellant s’ claims of f raud ulen t indu cem entand their ri g ht t o el ectremedie s u pon appell ees’ breac h of the settl ement ag re ement; (6 ) re q uir ing appel lan ts to depos it all chec ks joi ntl y pay abl e to defendants int o the co urt reg is tr y w hen app ellant s h ad the right to go to a ju ry o n tha t question ; and (7) failing to recogniz e Robe rt an d El l a’ s h om es te ad i nt eres t i n th e en c um be red p rop er ty

. W e affi r m. Iss ue On e: Stat ute o f Limi tati ons W hen both par

ti es mov e for summar

y j udg ment and the tr ial co urt g ra nts one mo tion a nd denie s the ot her, th e ap pellat e cou rt rev iew s the sum ma ry judgmen t evi den ce of both par

ti es, dete rmi nes all q uest ion s p re sent ed, a nd renders t he j udg ment t hat the t ri al c o u rtsh o u ld h a ve re n d e re d

. Br a d le y v. S t a t e e x re l. W h it e , 9 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 7 (T e x. 199 9).
O n t h e f irst issue, app ellant s conte nd th at Ag Serv ices began foreclosu re procedu re s i n Aug ust2003, m o re than four y ears a fter t he s tated Ja nuar y 31, 1999 “mat ur ity date” on the face of the deed of tr ust and, thus , t he forec los ure w as bar re d by the sta tute of li mita ti ons. Se e T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 16 .03 5 (Verno n 20 02).5

Fur ther , appell ants contend that the li en extens ion agreement si g ned on Aug ust14, 2003, canno t rev iv e the l ien thath a d al re ady been exti ng uis hed pr ior to ex ecut ion of the l ien extension agreeme nt. In co ntrast , app ellees co nte nd th at, d uring the ba nk ru ptcy proceed ing s, the p arti es ag re e to an extended pay ment s chedu le and t hereby extended the mat uritydate on the obligations. By the ter ms of the extens ion ag re ement, the a g re ed effectiv e da te o f the li en extension w as Octo ber 21 , 200 2. An agreem ent betw een litig ating partie s is contractu al. Se e W a gne r v. W a rn a sc h , 1 5 6 T e x. 33 4 , 2 9 5 S. W .2 d 89 0 , 8 9 3 (19 5 6 ). I n c o n s t r u in g a w ri tten cont ra ct, the pr imar y concer n of

the cour t is to as cer

tai n the tr ue i ntent ion s o f the partie s a s e x presse d in the in strum ent

. Co ker v. Co ker, 650 S .W .2d 3 91, 3 93 (T ex. 1983 ). Con si der ing that appel lan ts w ere proceed ing i n bank ru ptcy and that the p arti es anti ci pated the s ettl ement ag re ements to be bi ndi ng i n ac cordance w it h the Ag re ed Order of Oct ober 2002, w e hold that the li en maturi ty date w as extended and, thus , t he deed of tr ustmatur ity date w as als o extended. Therefore, w e find that th e t rial co urt di d noter r in deny ing app ellant s’ Motion for Sum ma ry Judgme n t and g rantin g app ellees’ Motion for Sum ma ry Judgm entbydete rmining tha t the Lien Extensio n Agreem entdid extend the Deed of Trust a n d t h a tt h e fo re c l o s u re p ro c e e d i n g w a s n o tb a r re d b y t h e s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s . W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ first is sue. Issue s Two and T hree : Redocu me nta tion a nd Ap pel le e s ’ First Motion for Sum ma ry Judg ment
In rev iew ing a t ra dit ion al summar y j udg me n t: (1) the mov ant h as the b urden of show ing thatthere i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact a nd th at i t is enti tl ed to j udg ment as6

a matt er of law ; (2 ) in deci din g w hether there i s a di sput ed mater ial fact i ss ue precl udi ng summar y j udgm e n t, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n onmov ant w il l be ta ken as tr ue; a nd ( 3) ev er y re asona ble inference must be ind ulg ed in fav or of t he nonmov ant and an y doubts must be resol v ed i n fav or of the n onmov ant. Am. Tob a cco C o. v . G ri nnel l, 951 S.W .2d 420, 425 ( Tex .1997) ( ci ti ng N ixon v . M r. Prop. M g mt. Co. , 6 9 0 S .W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 (Tex .1985) ). Appel lan ts’ next tw o i ss ues hav e prev iou sl y been address ed b y t h is co urt. See Terra X X I, 279 S. W .3d a t 786

. In i ss ue two, ap pel lan ts cont e n d t h a t th e reorg ani z ati on order i n the bank ru ptcy

courtexti ng uis hed appell ants ’ debt and req uired a new note and deed of tr ust

. How ev er , w e hav e prev iou sly hel d tha t t he reorg ani z ati on pl ans did not exti ng uis h the debt

. See i d. W e reaff ir m thatpos it ion

. Lik ew is e, on is sue three, appel lan ts cont end that the tr ial cour t er red in granting a p p e l l e e s ’ mo t i o n fo r s u mm a r y j u d g me n t b e c a u s e g e n u i n e i s s u e s w e re r ais ed. Spe cif ically , app ellant s conte nd th at (a) f o re c lo sure w as w rongf ul and the foreclosu re noti ces w ere i nadeq uate; ( b) ad v alo re m tax es were ti mely pai d; ( c) appel lee s fai led to infor m appel lan ts of the ex actamount ow ing ; ( d) the forecl osure s ale s p ri ce w as inad equate , and (e) the trial court failed to recogniz e Robe rt and Ella’s ho me stea d rig hts. T his issue has bee n extensively discussed in our previ ous o pinion and w e con tinue to hold that cons ide ri ng the ev ide nce in fav or of the n onmov ant t here are no g enuin e i ss u e s of mater ial fact co n sid e ring the n oti ce g iv en, t he pay ment of the ad v alo re m tax es, the amount o w ing , t he adeq uacy of t he sal es pr ic e, nor on the i ss ue of homest ead r ig hts

. See T erra XX I, 27 9 S.W .3d at 786 -789 . W e overrule appe llants’ seco nd a nd th ird issues.7

Is sue Four : G ra nti ng of Appel lee s’ F our th M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment
N ext, a pp el l an ts c on te nd t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt er red i n di s mi s s i ng ap pe l l an ts ’ c l ai ms of decept iv e trade pract ic es, predator y l endi ng , usur

y , tort iou s int er

ferenc e, and fail ure to perform a n acco unt ing of the f inan cial dea lings betw een the pa rties by grant ing appe llees’ fourth moti on for summar y j udg ment. Appell ants ’ compl ain ts break dow n i nto four su bis sues : ( a ) t h e t i me l i n e s s o f a p p e l l e e s ’ F o u rt h M o t i o n fo r S u mm a r

y J u d g me n t ; ( b) appel lee s’ fail ure to proper ly rais e a f f ir mati v e defenses i n i ts Seco nd Amende d Ans w er ins tead of in a moti on for summar y j udg ment; (c ) the a ppropr iat eness of re q uest ing the depos itof

j o int ly pay abl e c heck s i nto t he c our t reg is tr y ; and ( d) the cour

t’ s g ra nti ng of ap pe l l ee s ’ n o- ev i de nc e s um ma r y j ud g me nto n ap pe l l an ts ’ p os t- s ettl em en t us ur y c l ai m. (A ) Timel ine ss of Appel lee s’ F our th M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment Appel lan ts cont end t hat the tri al cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng appel lee s’ fourt h moti on for summar y j udg ment bec ause “w it hout lea v e of cour t, w it h o u t a moti on to al ter the sc h e d u lin g ord e r of

th is c o u rt , a n d w it h o u t e ven an ord e r se tt in g he a rin g, Defendant/Appel lee s w ere al low ed ov er Pl ain ti ffs/A ppel lan ts’ M oti on to Str i k e , t o i nj e ct n ew matters . . . . Appel lan ts shoul d nothav e been re q uired to respon d to suc h matt ers a bsent a mo tion for leave of

court.” How ever, appe llants ha v e failed to pointtow ard an y ev iden ce of a hear ing or

r uli ng on A ppel lan ts’ M oti on to Str ik e. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1. Ap pel lan ts have ma de n o sho w ing of surprise or prejud ice by app ellees’ failure to o bta in leave of court to f ile a late ple adin g. In fact, app ellant s presum ably bene f itted bythe trial court’s pract ice of all ow ing fil ing w it hout leav e of courtbecause they

fil ed a Mo ti on for Summary Ju dg mentAlam o Lu mb er Co. v . Gold, 661 S.W .2d 926 (Tex. 1983 ). 4 Appe llants also comp lain of the cou rt’s g rantin g of

a ppe llees’ request for sum ma ry 5 jud g ment as to post -b ankr uptcy lie n clai ms; how ev er , t he tr ial co urt actual ly deni ed appel lee s’ req ueston t his i ss ue. Therefore, w e w il l not a ddress thi s p oin t. 8 after the e x pirati on of the deadl ine st ated by appel lan ts. I n the abs ence of a suffici ent show ing of s ur pr is e by the oppos ing par ty , the failu re to obtai n l eav e of cour t w hen fil ing a late plea din g m ay

be cured bythe cour

t’ s cons ide ra ti on of

the ple adi ng . See Pa tterson v . F irst Na t’ l Bankof

Lake Jack son, 921 S.W .2d 2 40, 2 44 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 1996, no w ri t) . In this case, the tr ial courtheld a hear ing on Janua ry 12, 2007 and “ [a]fter cons ide ri ng the moti ons, re spons es, ev ide nce, and arg uments of couns el” i ss ued an order on Ap pellee s’ Fourth Motion for Sum ma ry Judgm ent

. W e conclu de that the trial court did not e rr i n c onsi der ing Appel lee s’ F our th M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment. (B ) Appell ees’ F ail ure to Rai se Aff ir mati v e D efenses in Amended A nsw er i nst ead of Summary

Ju dg ment M oti on Next, appel lan ts compl ain thatappel lee s’ moti on for summar y j u d gm ent rais es defe n se s a nd i ss ues that are notsu ppor ted b y thei r Seco nd Amende d Ans w er and that any unpl ed clai m or

defense first present ed in a moti on for su mmary

j udg ment s houl d be deni ed. Spec ific all y , app ell ants co ntend that appel lee s rai sed the aff ir mati v e defenses of ( 1 ) c o n t ra ctu a l d e fe n s e s t o u s u r y , ( 2 ) e x e c u t i o n o f g u a ra n t e e s a s a n a s s u mp t i o n o f a “c onti ng ent o bli g ati on” not as an assumpt ion of a debt as set forth in the A lamo Lumber 4 case, (3) “ lack of

conside ration ” to guarant ors, (4) legality of app ellees’ action in respo nse to ap pel lan ts’ cl aim of tor ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h g ov er nment pa y ments, and (5 ) failu re to prov ide an a cc ounti ng bec ause re q uest ed acti on w as moot. 59

A n a ffi r ma t i v e d e fens e is a d e n i a l o f p l a i n t i ff’ s r i g h tt o j u d g me n te v e n i f p l a i n t i ff est abl is hes ev er

y al leg ati on in it s ple adi ng s. Hi g hw ay Con tract ors, Inc . v . W . Tex . Eq uip

. Co., 617 S.W .2d 791 , 794 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.–Am arillo 1981 , no wr it). An af f irmative defense does not rebut the fact ual proposi ti ons of the pl ain ti ff ’s pl eadi ng . Gor man v . Li fe Ins. C o. of N. A., 811 S.W .2d 542 , 546 ( T ex. 1991 ). H owev er, w hen in conte xt, the plead ings, record of

the trial proce edin g, and b ri e fs m ake it clear tha t, con trary to app ellant s’ cont ent i on , ap pe l l ee s ’ g rou nd s d i d no t const itute af f irmative defense s beca use th ey directly re fute appel lan ts’ cl aims rather than se eki ng an av oid ance of appel lan ts’ rig ht to j udg ment. T here fore, ap pellee s’ g roun ds conta ined in its fo urth m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t w ere not re q uired to be cont ain ed in appel lee s’ Amended Answ er . See T EX . R. C IV . P. 94. Each of the ground s raised by a p p e ll e es in the ir F ourth Motion for Sum ma ry Judgme nt w ere proper ly co nsi dered unde r a tradi ti onal summary judg ment or , al ter nati v ely , as g ro unds for no- ev ide nce summar

y j udg ment. (C) Depo sit of

jointlypayable che cks into the court registry Next, appe lla n ts’ conte nd th at ap pellee s’ req uestto require the de posit o f jointly pay abl e c heck s i nto t he c our t reg is tr y i s not a proper

su mmary

j udg ment i ss ue but , i n fact, shoul d hav e been present ed as a “M oti on for Ma ndamus” or a mot ion to e n force a settle me nt. W e agree w ith app ellant s t hatt he court’s orde r requiring ap pellan t to de posit j o i n t l y p a y a b l e c h e c k s i s n o t a s u mm a r y j u d g me n t i s s u e ; h o w e v e r , w e d i s a g ree w it h app ellant s thatthe trial cou rt treate d it as a sum ma ry judgmen t issue. App ellant s’ cont enti on i s t he s ubj ectof it s s ixth i ss ue and is full y anal yz ed therew it h. See i nfra I ss ue S ix.10

(D) Sum ma ry

judgmen t on ap pellan ts’ post-set tlem entusury claim Appel lan ts al so cont end that the tri al cour t improper ly

denied appel lan ts’ Moti on to Str ik e D efendants’ N o- Ev ide nce Mo ti on for L ack of Par ti cul ar ity reg ardin g i ts post settl ement us ur

y cl aims and, i n tur n, ob ject t o the appel lee s’ n o -e v ide nce moti on for sum ma ry

jud gm e n t

. Ho we ve r, a p p e ll e e s a ls o ch a ll e n ge d a p p e ll a n t s ’ p ost-settlem entusury claims und er a t radition al sum ma ry ju dgme nt. Un der the t rial cou rt’s order on ap pellee s’ fourth mot ion for sum ma ry judgmen t, the trial court dete rmine d tha t “D e fend ant s’ [ap pellee s’] moti on for

s um ma r y j udgment , and /or in the alterna tiv e, m otion for no-evidence s um ma r y j ud g me ntd i s mi s s i ng a l l o f Pl ai nt i ffs’ [ap pell an ts ’ ] po s t- s ettl em en t us ur y c l ai ms is hereby GRANTED.”
W hen a tr ial court 's order granti ng summary

judg ment doe s n ot s peci fy the g ro und or g ro unds re li ed on for th e ru li ng , summar y jud g ment w il l be affirmed on appe al if any of the t heor ies adv anced are mer it or iou s. Stat e Far m Fi re & C as. C o. v . S. S., 858 S. W .2d 374, 380 (Tex . 199 3)

. Si nce, appel lee s p re sent ed a tradi ti onal su mmary j udg ment g ro und tha t is not c h a ll enged on ap pea l, w e w ill notov erturn th e trial court’s judgme nt. Maloo ly Bros., In c. v . Napier, 46 1 S.W .2d 119 , 120 (Tex. 1970 ). W e con clude thatthe trial court did no t err in dismissing appe llants’ po st -s e t t le m entusury claims. Hav ing addresse d all of appell ants ’ cont enti ons under Is sue Four , w e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ fourt h i ss ue. Iss ue F iv e: A ppel lee s’ Sec ond and F ifth M oti ons for Summar y Ju dg ment
On their f if

th i ssue, app ellant s cont end tha t the trial court erred in g rantin g app ellees’ sec ond and fifth moti ons for summary judg ments. In appell ees’ Sec ond M oti on for Par ti alAppel lee s’ F ifth M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment al so sought th e di smi ss al of 6 appel lan ts’ cl aims for p ost -s ettl ement da mag es, how ev e r, t h e tri al cour t di d notg ra nt app ellees’ request for sum ma ry judgmen t as to po st-settle me nt da ma ges.

11 Summary

Ju dg ment, appel lee s s tated that appell ants ’ cl aim all eg ing v iol ati ons of the Ban k Holding Comp any Act were b arred by an o rder f rom th e United State s Bankru ptcy C ourt for th e N orther n D is tr ict of Tex as and by a pr ior se ttl ement ag re e m e n t. Ap pel lee s’ F ifth Mo ti on for Par

ti al Summary Judg ment mov ed for summar y jud g ment and chal len g ed th e d a m a ges el e m e n to f

a p p e lla n ts ’ b re a ch of

co n tr a ctcla im . S p e cif ica lly, a p p e lle e s a lle ge tha t app ellant s did notdem onst rate th e da ma ge s s u f fered beca use a ppe llants w ere seek ing to re v ert t o pre- settl ement ad v ersar y cl aims as a measure of da mag es ins tead of seek ing damag es under the settl ement ag re ement. 6 Appel lan ts’ co mplai nt of the tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng o f appel lee s’ se cond and fifth moti ons for s ummary

judg ment is thatthe tr ial co urt di d not al low appel lan ts to el ectto sue appel lee s under the under ly ing “ re lea sed” ca uses of act ion or adv ersar

y cl aims , a re medy appel lan ts bel iev e i s av ail abl e to them becau se they cl aim they

w ere fraudu len tl y

i nduce d int o the se ttl ement ag re ement. Hence, appell ants contend that they sh oul d be all ow ed to rev iv e the ir adv ersary claims as they existed prior to the settle me nt agreem ent . Further, appel lan ts cont end t hat a ppel lee s did not meet their burden of neg ati ng al l of thei r caus es of acti on w it h competent summar y judg ment ev ide nce and rei terate p re v iou s c ontent ion s of gr oss ly i nadequ a te co n sid e ra ti o n , in a d e qua te fo re clo su re no ti ce s, and i ll eg al non- jud ic ial foreclosu re sale. But , y et again, a s in appe llants’ third issue , w e agree w ith the trial court that appel lee s s ucc ess fully demons trated that th e re were no g enui ne i ss ues of materi alTh e mo nies w ere several joint ly payable che cks used as collatera l fo r appe llants’ 7 debt to ap pel lee s. 12 fact w he n th e ev i de nc e w as v i ew ed i n th e l i g htmo s t fav orab l e to t he n on mo v an t. A m. Tobacc o C o., 951 S. W .2d a t 425

. As to w hether

appell ants should be all ow ed to rev iv e adv ersar y cl aims , w e hol d tha t appel lan ts cont ra cte d aw ay thei r ri g hts to adv ersar y cl aims w hen t he parti es entered i nto a sett lem ent agreem ent def ining the parties’ respo nsibilities an d rem edie s. See W agner, 295 S.W .2d a t 893 ; Gulf I ns. Co. v . Burns Motors, Inc., 2 2 S.W .3d 4 17, 4 22 (T ex. 2000 ). W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue. Issue Six : Order regarding j oint p aymen t checks de posite d in court registry
Next, appel lan ts cont end t hat a ppel lee s w ere g ra nted summar y j udg ment reg ardin g monies to be depo si ted int o the cour t re g is tr y . H ow ev er , t he c our

t, in order ing the monies 7 to be dep osited into the court registry , did no t ma ke any dete rmina tion a s to the ow nersh ip or r ig hts as soc iat ed w it h the m o n ie s. I t i s e nti re ly per mis si ble for a tr ial co urt t o order dispu ted f und s paid into the registry of the court until its ownership is dete rmine d if there is ev ide nce that th e funds are i n dang er of bei ng l ostor

depl eted. St ru ctu re d C apti al Res ources C or p. v . Arcti c C old Sto ra g e, L. L.C., 237 S.W .3d 8 90, 8 94 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 2007, no pet .)

. Me re ly pl aci ng the funds int o t h e c o u rt’s reg is tr y does not settl e the q uest ion of the o w nershi p of the funds and, therefore, canno t be cons ide re d an order on the meri ts. Id. at 894- 95. As su ch w e do not c onsi der the tr ial co urt’ s a cti ons as an order g ra nti ng appel lee s s ummary j udg ment on thi s is sue. W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ si xth i ss ue.13

Iss ue Sev en: H omeste ad r ig hts of Rob ert ( Bob) and El la Vei g el
Fi nal ly , app ell ants co ntend that the t ri al cour t er re d i n fail ing to re cog niz e Bob and El la’ s h omeste ad r ig hts i n the forec los ed proper ty

. In s uppor

t of the ir claim, appel lan ts direct this cou rt to the af f idavits of

Bob a nd Ella Ve igel, dated Nov em ber 16 , 200 4, f iled in Respo nse to App ellees’ Motion for S um ma ry Ju dgme nt. Appe llants con ten d tha t the se af f idavi t s raise fact issue s thatprevent the g rantin g of app ellees’ request for sum ma ry judgm e n t

. How ever, in their ow n respo nse, app ellant s state that“upon [Bob ’s fa the r’s] death [the 200 ac re s of lan d] w ere gi fted to a tr ustof w hic h Bob w as both a tr ust ee and a ben ef iciary . . . . Although Bo b con v eyed his interestto T erra XX I Ltd ., pa rtnership , Ella never joined in th e con v eyance.” Th e trial court, in its Order on Pla intif fs’ and Defend ant s’ Res pect iv e M oti ons for Summar y Judg ment, made findi ng s o f facti ncl udi ng thatpar t of the dis puted lan d ( Lots 60, 61, an d 6 2 ) w ere nev er ow ned by

Bob or El la but b y

the Vei g el Family T ru st; the re fore, the c our t found t hat B ob and El la did not hav e any homes tead int eresti n tha t proper

ty

. Fur ther , t he tr ial co urt found t hat a nother part o f the dis puted prop erty, Lot 42, w as owned by Bob and Ella, butthatthey convey ed th e prop erty to T erra by sp eci al w ar ra nty

deed on N ov ember

1, 1994. Hence, the tr ial co urt found t hat B ob and El la did not poss ess any homes tead int eresti n Lot42.
Once again, w hen both parties m ove for sum ma ry judgmen t and the trial court g ra nts one moti on and deni es the o ther , t he appe ll ate cour t re v iews the s ummary

j udg ment ev ide nce of both par

ti es, dete rmi nes all q uestio n s p resent ed, a nd renders t he j udg ment that the t ri al cour

t shoul d hav e re ndered. Bradl ey , 990 S.W .2d at 247. In Tex as, i n order to es tabl is h homes tead ri g hts , t here mustbe p ro of of conc ur re nce of usag e and int ent o n14

the p a rtof the o w ner

to cl aim the l and as a ho mestea d. Pr inc e v . N orth S tate Bankof Amar il lo, 484 S.W .2d 4 05, 4 0 9 ( T e x.Civ.App. 1972, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.)

. The in tent of the ow ne r to c l ai m t he l an d as a h om es te ad i s t o be e s ta bl i s he d by c om pe te ntp roo f att he t i me of the ex ecut ion of the deed of tru st. Se e i d. at411. I f the homes tead cl aimantco ntends that the p ro per

ty w as bei ng us ed i n c onnecti on w it h hi s resi dence , t he det er mini ng factor is w het her the claiman t's acts w ere such as t o puta rea sona ble prud entp erson on no tice that the t ra ct const it u ted a par t of the homest ead. Id. As a g eneral ru le, w hen a hom este ad claim antoccup ies a hou se on a lot as a ho me stea d, ot her lo t s u s e d only inc ide ntal ly

or se conda ri ly

to home purpos es are not par t of the homest ead. See id. at 410 (citing Calv ert v . Hann a, 14 0 S.W .2d 976 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.–Am arillo 1940 , no wr it)).
In th is case, app ellant s d id notp resen t any e v iden ce tha t, at the t ime of convey ance from Vei g el Fami ly

Trus t t o Ter ra , Bo b and El la to Ter ra , or from Te rra t o AAC , t hat t he par ti es int ended t o reser

v e any homes tead ri g hts

. At b est , app ell ants ’ ev ide nce o f the aff ida v it s o f

B o b a n d Ell a s how

an i ntentto cl aim homest ead r ig hts as of Nov ember 16, 2 0 0 4

. A p p e ll a nts fail to cite to an y othe r referen ce in the v olum inou s record tha t could demonst ra te us ag e or

the int ent t o retai n the proper ty as a ho mestea d att h e time of conveyance of

the pro perty to eithe r T erra in 199 4 or to AAC in 19 98 a nd we are unab le to find any suc h suppo rt ing ev ide nce. Se e T EX . R. A PP . P

. 3 8

. 1 (i ); A rr e d o n d o v. Ro d ri gu e z, 198 S.W .3d 236, 238-3 9 (Tex .App. –San Antoni o 2006, no pet.) (thi s cour t i s n ot req uired to w ade t hroug h a v olu minous re cord to mars hal appel lan ts’ proof, but iti s t he duty of the par ty to show thatthe re cord s uppor ts it s c ontent ion ). H ence, w e c o n clu d e that the tr ial15

cour t di d noter r in findi ng no g enui ne iss ues of fact reg ardin g the homest ead r ig hts to Lots 60, 6 1, or

62.
Fi nal ly , al thoug h appel lan t, El la Vei g el, co ntends thatsh e di d not j oin her hus band, Bob, in the c onv ey ance of the prop erty , Lot 42, to Terra, the rec ord demonstrates that , by a Spec ial W ar ra nty

D eed sig ned by

both Bob and El la Vei g el, the proper ty w as conv ey ed to T erra on Novemb er 1, 19 94 wi tho ut an y m ent ion of

a reserv ation of

hom este ad rights. Fur ther , t he fact that the V eig els may hav e l iv ed i n a h ome on Lot 61 does not cha ng e or giv e r i s e to an y ev i de nc e th at ot he r l ot s , s pe c i fi c al l y Lo t 42 , w hi c h w ere us ed only in c id e n t a ll y o r s e c o n d a r i ly t o h o m e p u rp o s e s , a re p a rto f a n y h o m e s t e a d t h a tm a y h a ve ex is ted o n Lot61. See Pr inc e, 48 4 S. W .2d a t 410

. W e c onc lu d e t h a t th e tr ial co urt di d noter r in it s fin din g s o f factor i n g ra nti ng a p p e l l e e s s u m m a r

y j u d g m e n tre g a rd i n g B o b a n d E l l a V e i g e l ’ s h o m e s t e a d r i g h t s . We ov er ru le appel lan ts’ se v enth is sue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led al l of appell ants ’ is sues , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice