For a more detailed e x planation of the f acts surr ounding the fore closure, a nd 1 Ms. Se rr ano ’s pr ior

laws uit s see Serrano v. Union Planter’ s Bank, 162 S.W .3d 576 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 2004, pet. denied)
. C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
ROSA SER RANO, Ap pe lla nt,
v. FI RST P RESTONS MANAGEMENT CORPORATI ON, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 00 42 -C V

Appea l from the 34th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006-5577)

O P I N I O N This is one of a se ries of la wsuits filed by

Ms. Rosa Serrano r eg ardingthe re possession and for eclosure of her

family home. Ms. Serrano f

iled this lawsuit on Februa ry 5, 2004, alleg ing 1 First Prestons Mana g ement Corporation (“F irst Prestons”) wa s involved in the wrong ful fore closure of

the Serra no home as the loa

n servicingag ent for Union Planter’s B ank. Union P l an t e r ’ s B an k

h e l d th e m o rt g a g e o nth e p r o p e rty w h i l e i tw a s o w n e d b y th e S e r

r an o f am i l y. First Prestons filed its first motion for summary judgme nt on J une 20, 2006. The trial court g rante d First Prestons’s motion on J uly 26, 2006. On September 5, 2006, Ms. Serrano
ame nd e d h e r p e tit ion

to i nc lud e a

c a us e of a c tio n f or an a lle g e d v iol atio n o f t

he F e de ra l Sin g le F amil y Mo rt g a g e F or e c los ur e Ac t. I n r e sp on se to t

his ne w c a

us e of a c tio n, F ir st Pr e sto ns fi le d it s se c on d mo tio n f

or su mma ry jud g me nt, and

a mot ion to s e ve r t he c a se fr om M s. Se rr ano ’s c la ims-2-

a g a ins t th e oth e r d e fe nd ants . On Novembe r 30, 2006, the trial c ourt enter ed orde rs seve ringFirst Prestons’s c ase f rom Ms. Serrano’ s claims ag ainst the other de fenda nts, and g rantingFirst Prestons’s sec ond motion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Ms. Serrano se eks to raise four issues for revie w. I ssue One states: “Where lien w as exti ng uished by

confirmation plan of J ulian Serra no’s bankr

uptcy , did Union Planters possess an
e mpt y le g a l r ig ht t o f

or e c los e ? ” I ssu e Tw o p ro vid e s: “ Whe re no -e vid e nc e summa ry jud g me nt i s inc or re c tly g ra nte d whe n a

c on tr ov e rt e d f

a c t at is su e re ma ins , d oe s tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n whe re le g a l su ff ic ie nc y e xists to d e ny

summa ry jud g me nt?” I ssu e Thre e state s: “ Di d
su bs e qu e nt c onve y anc e by

Pr e sto ns ra ise a

tor t a c tio n whe n U nio n Pl ante rs did no t ho ld a

va lid lie n to e nf

or c e and e mpo we r t

ru ste e to s e ll r e a l pr op e rt

y ? ” I ssu e F our p ro vid e s: “ Re s ju dic ata pr e dic ate d o n th e fi rs t c ourt that he ld j ur isd ic tio n o ve r c on tr ov e rs y , th e re fr om a ny c onve y anc e is void to claim rea l titl e to re al prope rty , did bankruptcy court hold jurisdiction to ex tinguish lien? ” We will construe these issues a s challeng es to the summary judgme nt gr anted be low. An a pp e llate c ourt

re vie ws summa

ry jud g me nt de novo
. Prov ide nt L ife&Ac c ide nt I ns . Co. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). The sc ope of r eview f or a tra ditional summ ary judgme nt is well established. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 16 6a (c ); Nixon v. Prop. Mgmt., I nc. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548-49 (Te x . 1985). A de fenda nt is entitl ed to summary

judgme nt on an af

firmative defe nse whe n the par

ty conclusively

establishes ea ch ele ment of the de fense asser ted. See Ryland Group, Inc . v. Hood, 924 S.W .2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996). When the materia l fac ts are undisputed, the nonmovant may defe at a motion for summary judgme nt by

establishing that the movant’s leg al position is uns ound. Hansen v . Our Rede rrmer Lutheran Church , 938 S.W .2d-3-

85, 90 (Tex.App.--Da llas 1996, writ denied)
. One of the g rounds asser

ted by First Prestons in its traditional moti on for summary judgme nt was that Ms. Serra no’s claims we re ba

rre d by the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata . Res jud ic ata is an aff

irmative def

ense. T EX .R.C IV .P. 94 . T he pa rt y c la imi ngthe de fe ns e mus t pr ov e : (1) a prior fina l judgment on the me rits by a cour t of compete nt jurisdiction; (2) the identify of the par ties or those in privy

with them; and (3) a

second a ction based on the same c laims as wer e, or could have bee n raised in the f irst action. In re K.S. , 7 6 S. W.3 d 3 6, 43 (T e x.Ap p. -- Am ari llo 2002, no pet.). Re

s ju dic ata pr e c lud e s b oth re -l iti g atio n o f c la ims that ha ve be e n f ull y adjudicate d, as subseque nt liti g ation of cla ims which arise out of the subject matter a s the prior litigation, and ther efor e could ha ve bee n broug ht in the prior suit. Se e Am sta dt v . U .S . B ra ss Corp. , 9 19 S.W. 2d

64 4, 65 2 ( Te x. 19 96 ); McFarland v . Bridges , 104 S.W .3d 906, 909 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 2003, no pet.)
. In it s summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on , F ir st Pr e sto ns e sta bli sh e d th at Ms . Se rr ano ’s c la ims
re g ard ingthe fo re c los ur e and sa le of he r f athe r’ s h ou se we re lit ig ate d to a fi na l ju dg me nt i n c a us e numbe r 9 8- 23 27 by

the 34 th D ist

ri c t Co ur t of El Pa so County

on Janu ary 31 , 2 00 3. Th is Court affir

med the trial c ourt’s judg ment on appea l in 2006. First Prestons established that the pa rt ie s invo lve d in

the pr ior lit ig atio n w e re the same pa rt ie s, or we re re late d to the same pa rt ie s, befor e the c ourt in this sui t. Finally , First Prestons has e stablished that as in ca use number 98- 23 27 , th e c e ntr a l c la im und e rl yingthi s la ws uit is t hat th e Se rr ano fa

mil y ha s b e e n e rr on e ou sly de pr ive d o f t

he ir re a l pr op e rt

y . A ll o f t

he dama g e s c la ime d in

bo th s uit s r e late ba c k to Ms. Serrano’ s alleg ation that Union Planter’s a nd its ag ents illeg ally

fore closed on he r father’s home.-4-

First Prestons established a ll three e lements of its defe nse. Ms. Serra no has not offe red
e vid e nc e or

argume nt t o c on tr ov e rt

F ir st Pr e sto ns ’s pr oo f. Ms. Se rr a no ’s argume nts on

a pp e a l,
as we ll as to the trial court, c onsist si mply of her theories f

or re cover

y ag ainst the numerous defe ndants she has sue d. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule I ssues One through Four
. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d a ll o f A

pp e lla nts iss ue s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

J une 3, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, J., and Ba raja s, C.J . (Ret.) B ara ja s, C.J. ( Re t.) (S itt ingby As signme nt)