NO. 07-06 -019 3-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 LY16, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ TERRA X

X I, LTD., VEI GEL FAR M PAR TNER S, D /B/A VEI GEL PAR TNER S, T ER RAPA RT NE RS , V EI GE L FA RMS , I NC. , V EI GE L CAT T L E CO MP AN Y, ROBERT W . VEIG EL, ELLAMARIE VEIGE L, GRAIN CENT RAL ST AT ION, INC. D/ B/A VEIG EL G RA IN C OM PAN Y , VE IGEL -K IR K, I NC ., STEVE V EIGE L, IN DI VID UA LLY , STEVE VEI GEL, IN C. , BO B VE IGEL , I NC .,

VI C KI V EI GE L, I N C
. A PP EL LA N TS

V. MA RK H AR MO N, IN DI VID UA LLY AN D AS S UB STITUTE TRU STEE, A PPELLE E

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DE AF SMI T H CO UNT Y; ND NO . C I- 06B- 015; HO NO RA BLE R OLAN D SAU L, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant s, Te rra X

XI, Ltd
. (Te rra); Veigel Farm Partners, d/b/a Veigel Farms, Inc. (Veigel Farms); Te rra Partne rs; Veigel Cattle Comp any; RobertW
. V e ig el; Ella Marie V e ig e l; G ra in Ce n t ra l S t a t io n , I n c . , d / b / a V e ig e l G ra in C o m p a n y; V e ig e l- K ir k , I n c . ; S t e ve V e ig e l, I n d ivi d u a ll y; S t e ve V e ig e l, I n c . ; B o b V e ig e l, I n c . ; a n d V ic k i V e ig e l, I n c . , (c o ll e c t ive ly,2

“app ell an ts ” ) , ap pe al t he g ran ti ng o f ap pe l l ee ’ s , M ar kH ar mo n, mo ti on for s um mary j ud g me nta nd t he d en i al o f ap pe l l an ts ’ p ar ti al s um ma r

y j ud g me ntmo ti on . W e affi r m. Back g ro und In 19 98, Te rra and Veigel Farms borrow ed fu nds from Ag Serv ices of Ame rica, Inc. (A g Ser v ic es)
. In ex chang e for the funds , Ter ra g ra nted a deed of t ru st for proper ty l ocat ed in Dea f Smith Cou nty

to Ag Ac cept ance Co rp orati on (AAC ) as col lat eral. Terra and Vei g el Far ms fil ed for bankr uptcy w hic h c ulmi nated, i n 2001, in a b a n kruptcy pl an of re org ani z ati on ( “reorg ani z ati on pl ans” ) for eac h of the compani es’ debt , i ncl udi ng Ag Services’s out stan ding loans to t he tw o com pan ies. A s p art of the ba nkrup tcy proce edin gs, Ag Ser v ic es and the compani es ag re ed to and submi tted Ag re ed Orders o n obj ect ion of Ag Serv ices to the reo rg anization plan s (“Agreed Orders”) in each of the two bankrup tcy cas es. Thes e Ag re ed Orders w ere approv ed by the bankr uptcy

co urt. In 20 03, Ag Services, believi ng tha t T erra and Veigel Farms had defaulte d on their loa ns and had fail ed to pay ad v alo re m tax es on th e proper ty , c ontacted H ar mon to actas it s tr ust ee for forecl osure proceed ing s on the proper ty deeded to AAC
. In furtherance of the forecl osure, H ar mon se nt no tice t o Terra and Vei g el Far ms and co nduct ed th e foreclosu re sale of

the pro perty, w hich w as pu rchase d by AAC fo r $20,0 00. W hen Robert V e ig e l a n d E ll a V e ig e l, wh o re s id e d o n t h e p ro p e rt y, re f u s e d t o su rr e n d e r t h e p ro p e rt y, AAC i nit iat ed a forci ble deta ine r act ion in jus ti ce cour t t o w hic h appel lan ts re spond ed by ini ti at i ng t he i ns ta nts ui t i n di s tr i c t c ou rt al l eg i ng , am on g o th er a c ts , w ron g ful foreclosu re on the p ro per

ty
. Appel lan ts’ su itnamed A g Ser v ic es, AAC , and M ar k H ar mon as3

defendants. The na med defendants fil ed a moti on for summary

j udg ment and appel lan ts filed a mo t i o n fo r p a rt i a l s u mm a r y j u d g me n t
. Aft e r a h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u rt g ra n ted t he moti on for summar

y j udg ment as i t rela ted t o c lai ms ag ain st Harmon and den ied app ellant s’ motio n for partial sum ma ry judgmen t. Ha rm on th en m oved for severance in order to make t he g ra nti ng of summar y j udg ment i n hi s fav or

a fina l jud g ment. Appel lan ts now

appeal Har mon’s f ina l jud g ment contend ing thatthe tr ial co urt er re d in g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment bec ause Har mon ( 1) nev er fil ed sw or n pl eadi ng s a s re q uired by

se cti on 51. 007 of the Tex as Proper ty C ode; (2 ) did n o t s how , as a matter of law , the abse nce o f

his liability

beca use h e relied on an extinguished d eed of trust as his author ity to forecl ose; and (3) fail ed to show that no g enui ne iss ue of m ater ial fact e x is ted reg ardi ng h i s l i ab i l i ty
. W e affi r m. Is su e On e : Un swor n pl e a d in gs Stat utor y i nter pretati on is a q uest ion of law
. In re C anal es, 52 S .W .3d 6 98, 7 01 (Tex . 200 1)
. Our

pr imar y g oal in int er preti ng a sta tute is to asc ertai n and to effectuate the Legislature ' s i nt en t. I d. I n do i ng s o, w e be g i n w i th t he s ta tu te ' s p l ai n l an g ua g e be fore re s o rt in g t o ru le s o f c o n s t ru c t io n . He le n a Ch e m . Co
. v. W il k in s , 4 7 S
. W
. 3 d 4 8 6 , 4 9 3 (T e x. 2 0 0 1 ); Fi t zge ra ld v. A d va n c e d S p in e Fi xa t io n S ys . , I n c . , 9 9 6 S
. W
. 2 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 5 -6 6 (T e x. 1999)
. W e beg in w it h the plai n lang uag e because w e assume that the Leg is lat ure tr ied to say w hat i t meant ; t herefore, the s tatut e's w ords sho u ld be the s urestg uid e to the Leg i s l at ure' s i nt en t. F i tz g eral d, 99 6 S. W .2 d at 86 6. W he n a s ta tu te i s en acte d, it is presu me d tha t the entire sta tute is i nte nde d to be e f fective a nd tha t a just an d reaso nab le4

re sul t i s i nten d e d. S ee T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311.021 (2 )- (3 ) (V er non 199 8)
. In asce rta i ni ng l eg i s l at i v e i nt en t, w e do no t c on fi ne ou r rev i ew to i s ol at ed s ta tu to r y w ords, phrases , or

cl auses , butw e i nst ead ex amine the e nti re act. M er it or Aut o., Inc . v . Ruan L e asi ng C o., 44 S. W .3d 8 6, 90 ( Tex . 200 1)
. See al so T EX . G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 311. 011 (Verno n 199 8) (inst ructing co urts to con strue words and ph rases in con text). Som e facto rs that can be c onsi dered i n const ru ing a sta tute, w hether or not the sta tute is ambi g uous on it s face, are the o bje ct so ug ht t o be attai ned and the cons eq uence s o f a par ti cul ar cons tr uct ion
. T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311 .02 3(1), (5) (Vernon 199 8). In t his ca se, the sta tutor y prov is ion i n q uest ion i s se ct ion 51.00 7 of the Tex as Proper ty C ode, w hic h s tates : (a ) The trus tee named in a sui t or p ro ceedi ng may pl ead i n the ans w er

that the t ru ste e i s n ot a neces sar y par ty bya v er ified denial st ati ng the basi s for the trustee 's reason able b elief t hatt he truste e w as nam ed as a pa rty solely in the c apaci ty

as a t ru st e e under a deed of tru st, co ntractl ien , or se cur ity ins tr ument. T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 51.007 (V er non 1998)
. Al thoug h appel lan ts cont end t hat H ar mon, act ing as su bst it ute t ru ste e for Ag Ser v ic es, wa s re q uired to v er ify any defense to app ellant s’ suit, se ction 51. 007 o f t he T exas Property C ode requires a veri f ied de nial on ly if H ar mon co ntends thathe was n o t a n e ce ssar y par ty to the s uit
. In hi s mot ion for summar y j udg ment, Har mon does not cont end he w as not a neces sar y par ty
. In cont ra st, Har mon req uest ed summary judg ment contend ing that appell ants ’ cl aims w ere bar re d by a previous ban kruptcy order, app ellant s failed t o prese nt genu ine issue s of mat erial fact show ing w ro ng ful forec los ure, ap pel lan ts faile d to show thatAAC ’s ti tl e w as v oid , and5

appel lan ts faile d to demonst ra te Har mon’s liab il ity as substi tute tr ust ee. W e c oncl ude t hat Har mon’s req uestfor s ummary ju d gm e n t w as not req uired to be v er ified under se cti on 51.007 of the Tex as Proper ty C ode bec ause the mot ion for summar y judg ment doe s n ot raise the issue of

Harmon ’s status as a nece ssary party. T hus, the trial court did not err in grant ing Harm on’s sum ma ry judgeme nt no tw ithsta ndin g the lack of v erif ied ple adin gs. Is su e T wo: Ha rm o n ’s a u th o rit y to in it ia te fo re clo su re pro ce e d in gs W hen bot h par

ti es mov e for summar

y j udg ment and the tr ial c our t 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 jud g ment t hat t he tr ial 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). An ag re ement be tw een l it ig ati ng par ti es is co ntract ual
. See W ag ner v. W ar nasc h, 156 Tex . 334 , 295 S.W .2d 8 90, 8 93 ( Tex . 195 6)
. In c onst ru ing a w ri tten cont ra ct, the pr imar y co ncer n of the cour

t i s t o ascer

tai n the tr ue i ntent ion s o f the par ti es as ex press ed in the instrum e n t . Coker v . Coker, 65 0 S.W .2d 391 , 393 (Tex. 1983 ). To ach ieve this o bje c t ive , co u rt s sh o u ld e xa m in e a n d co n s id e r th e e n t ir e wri t in g in a n e f fo rt t o h a rm o n ize and g iv e effectto all the prov is ion s o f the c ontractso thatnone w il l be rendered me anin gless. Id. No si ngle p rov ision take n alon e w ill be giv en co ntrolling ef fect; rath er, all the prov is ion s mus t be cons ide re d w it h referenc e to the w hol e i nst ru ment. Id. App ellant s’ conte ntion is that the reorganiz ation plans extinguished the dee d of trust and, thus , the deed of t ru st coul d not author iz e Har mon to proceed w it h a forecl osure. As6

supp ort, app ellant s d irect o ur a tten tion to Paragraph 6 .01 o f t he reo rg anization p lans w hich stat e, “ [c]o ns i s te nt w i th Se c ti on 11 41 ( d) ( 1) of th e Ba nk r up tcy C od e, th e D eb to r shall re cei v e a d is charg e of an d from an y debtthatarose before t he dat e of confir mati on. . . .” How ev er , t he reorg ani z ati on pl ans do notdi sc harg e the debtsecured by the deed of tr ust , butrather m odif

y and incorpora te th e term s of the deb t secure d by the dee d of trust w ithin the reorg ani z a ti o n pl ans. U nder Ar ti cl e II I, parag ra ph 10, the re org ani z ati on pl ans li sts events tha t w ould const itute default and specif ically det ail T erra and V e ig e l Farm ’s obl ig ati on to co nti nue per formance of anyof the c onv enants and con d it io ns of the l oan document s e v ide nci ng Ag Servic e s’s cl aim, i ncl udi ng the deed of tr ust
. In ad dit ion , parag ra ph 11(c ) detai ls Ag Ser v ic es’ s c ure prov is ion s a s “ all r ig hts and re medies prov ide d under Tex as law ,” w hic h w oul d i ncl ude the ri g ht to judi ci al and nonjud ic ial forec los ure. See T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 51.002 (V er non 199 8) ; Ed m u n d so n Inv . C o. v . F la. Trec o, I nc. , 633 S. W .2d 59 9 , 6 0 1 -0 2 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 1982, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.)
. As to appel lan ts’ co ntent ion thatthe deed of tr ustdi d not co nti nue bec ause the reorg ani z ati on pla ns modified the lo an terms , w e obser v e that the reorg ani z ati on plans and the A g re ed Orders recalcula ted the ind ebt edn ess an d s p ecif ically provi ded in paragraph 1 1 (cure prov is ion s u nder

Tex as law ) that Ag Ser v ic es w oul d be enti tl ed to pursue col lecti on of the re cal cul ated amount. R eadi ng t h e c o n tractas a w hol e, w e c oncl ude t hat t he reorganization plan s and Agreed Orders in corpo rated t he deb t secure d by the d eed o f trust and aut hor iz ed Ag Ser

v ic es the remedy

of coll ect ing the re cal cul ated inde btednes s byany re medy prov ide d under

Tex as law , inc lud ing nonj udi ci al forecl osure. Therefore, the t ri al court did not err in conclud ing that Harmo n did no t in c u r li a bility for w rongf ul foreclosu re for proceed ing under

the author ity o f

the deed of tr ustas i ncor porated int o the7

re org ani z ati on pl ans. F urther , w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in deny ing appel lan ts’ moti on for par ti al summar

y jud g ment re q uest ing the tr ial cour t to find thatthe dee d of trust w as extinguished by the reorganization pla ns.

Iss ue Three: Tradi ti onal Summar y Ju dg ment Summary

j udg ments are rev iew ed de nov o. Va len ce Operati ng C o. v . D orsett, 164 S.W .3d 6 56, 6 61 ( Tex . 200 5)
. W e appl y the follo w ing st andards in re v iew ing a t ra dit ion al summar y j udg ment: ( 1) the mov ant h as the b urden of sh ow ing thatthere i s n o g enui ne is sue of materi al fact and that it is enti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of law ; ( 2) i n dec idi ng w het her the re is a dispute d ma terial fact issue pre c lu d in g sum ma ry judgmen t, evidence favorable to th e no nm ovant w ill be t aken a s t rue; and (3) every reason able inferen ce mu st b e i n d u lged i n fav or

of the n onmov ant a nd any doubt s mus t be re sol v ed i n fav or of the nonmov ant. Am. Tobacc o C o. v . G ri nnel l, 951 S.W .2d 4 20, 425 (Tex
. 1997) (c it ing N ixon v . M r. Prop. M g mt. C o., 690 S. W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) ). App ellant s conte nd th at th e trial court err o n e o u s ly g rante d Harmo n sum ma ry judgme nt be cause t h e ir cau se of action raised several g enu ine issue s of mat erial fact inv olv ing noti ce re q uirements dur ing a forecl osure p ro ce e d ing , er ro neous findi ng s o f default jus ti fyi ng the ini ti ati on of forec los ure proceed ing s, and tr ust ee l iab il ity ar is ing from th e tru st e e ’s a ct io n s re su lt in g in a n un fa ir sa l e o r g r o ss ly ina d e qua te pri ce du rin g a forecl osure. Appel lan ts’ co ntent ion thatH ar mon di d not prov ide proper noti ce inv olv es sev eral different facts that Appel lan ts bel iev e are ge nui ne iss ues of mater ial fact . Fi rs t, appel lan ts8

cont end t hat H ar mon “ prematurely ” present ed not ic e of default becau se Terra and Vei g el Far ms had recei v ed an extens ion to make p ay ment on the o uts tandi ng l oan. How ev er , t he noti ce of default no ti fied Ter ra and Vei g el Far ms t hat, in additi o n to the d efault on th e outs tandi ng l oan, T e rra a n d Vei g el Far ms w ere al so del inq uent in it s p ay ment of ad v alore m t a x es, w hic h c onst it uted a s eparate e v ent o f defaul t und er the re org ani z ati on pla ns. Therefore, re v iew ing the facts i n f av or of the n onmov ant, w e c oncl ude t hat, alt houg h an is sue mayex is t rela ti ng to the n oti ce a s itr ela tes to pay ment of the outs tandi ng l o a n , there i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact t hat n oti ce based on t he d e li n qu e n ta d va lo re m t a xe s wa s t im e ly. Next, appel lan ts cont end that Har mon’s noti ce of ac cel eration w a s inade q uate becau se itdi d notprov ide notic e of intentto acc ele ra te nor w as the noti ce uneq uiv ocal
. How ev er , by

the par ti es’ Ag re ed Orders, the p arti es ag re ed to the form of proper noti ce. See Micrea, Inc. v. Eure ka Life Ins. Co. of A m. , 534 S.W .2d 348 , 357 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.– Fort W orth 19 76, w rit ref ’d n.r.e .) (parties can w aive notice of inten t to acce lerate bycontract ). Fur ther , rev iew ing H ar mon’s noti ce of a cc e le ra ti on i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the non mo v ant , w e con clude thatthe no tice of accelerat ion unequiv ocally state s tha t, be cause T erra and Veigel Farm’s de f ault rem aine d un cured af ter 30 d ays, all inde bte dne ss in conne cti on w it h thi s matter w as due and pay abl e. Therefore, there i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of materi al fact reg ardin g noti ce of acce lerati on. Appel lan ts als o c ontend thatthe noti ce of forecl osure w as ina deq uate becau se the not ice w as no t sentto each obligor, specif ically Grain Central Sta tion a n d V eigel Cattle Com pan y . How ever, the partie s a greed in t he reorganization plan s and the Agreed Orders9

that n o ti ce sent t o Ter ra and Vei g el Far ms woul d s ati sfythe noti ce re q uirements under Tex as law
. Hen ce, Terra and Vei g el Far ms recei v ed actual noti ce of the forec los ure as re q uired by

the re org ani z ati on pl ans. Fi nal ly , app ell ants make a g enerali z ed poi nt t hat Har mon fail ed to comply w it h nonw aiv abl e not ic e req uirements
. How ev er , ot her than the noti ce re quirement s d is cus sed abov e, ap pel lan ts do not s peci fy any addi ti onal req uirements thatH ar mon fail ed to meet. Hen ce, any

furth er i ss ues re g ardin g noti ce w ere w aiv ed by i nadeq uate br iefin g . T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( h)
. W e c oncl ude t hat H ar mon co mpli ed w it h the noti ce re q uirements under T exas law , t h e b a n k ru ptcy reorganization pla ns, an d the parties’ Agreed Orde rs. N o g e n u i n e i s s u e o f ma t e r i a l fa c t s e x i s t s a s t o t h e n o t i c e g i v e n b y H a r mo n u n d e r the reorganization plan s and Agreed Orders. Appel lan ts’ next c ontent ion i s t hat t he forec los ure w a s wron gful s inc e Ter ra and Vei g el Far ms were n ot actual ly i n default
. Spec ific all y , app ell ants cl aim that Terra and Vei g el Far ms recei v ed an extens ion to pay off the lat e l oan paym e n t, a n d that the ad v alo re m tax es had, in fact, been paid but mi sappl ied to the w ro ng ac count by the tax off ic e. How ev er , i t i s u ndi sput ed th at t he ta x records for th e c ounty

sh ow ed th e ad v alo re m tax es for 200 2 as delinque nt as of the dat e of the not ice of default. Hence , v iew ing the facts in fav or of the n onmov ant, there are no g enui ne is sues of materi al fact th at A g Ser v ic es and it s a g ent, H a rmon, had a v ali d bas is for i nit iat ing forec los ure proceed ing s b ecaus e the del inq uent ad v alo re m tax es did appear del inq uent on th e c ounty tax records.10

Add itiona lly , app ellant s claim t h a tT e rra and Ve igel Farms were unab le to rem it f u n d s t o cu re t h e ir d e fa u ltb e ca u se t h e y were n o t in fo rm e d as to th e exa ctam o u n t o wing. How ev er , app ell ants hav e noti denti fied any auth or ity

imposi ng su ch a duty

on H ar mon. See Sanders v . Shel ton, 970 S.W .2d 721,726 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1998, pe t. denied)
. Therefore, ev en if Terra and Vei g el Far ms di d notkn ow the amount o w ing , w e c oncl ude that appel lan ts hav e fail ed to demons trate t hat H ar mon had a dutyto infor m Terra and Vei g el Far ms of the amount o w ing
. App ellant s’ fin al cont ent ion to show tha t Harmo n w as no te n t it led to summ ary judgme nt de a ls with Harmon ’s li ability as a truste e du ring foreclosu re procee dings. Spec ific all y , app ell ants co ntend that Ha rmon ina cc uratel y des cr ibe d the forec los ed prop erty at th e sale which resulted in th e prop erty bein g sold ata grossly inad equate price or l ed to an u nfair

sa le. A tr ust ee mus t c onduc t a forecl osure s ale fair ly and not d is courag e bi ddi ng by acts or st atements made be fore or dur ing the sal e. S ee Pet erson v . B la ck , 9 8 0 S .W .2d 8 18, 822 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 1998, no p et.) ; Pe ntad Joi nt V enture v . F irst Na t' l Bankof La Grang e, 79 7 S. W .2d 92, 96 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1990, w ri t den ied ); Bi ddl e v . N at’ l Ol d Li ne Ins . C o., 513 S. W .2d 1 35, 1 38 ( Tex .C iv .App. -D all as 1974, w ri t re f'd n.r .e.) . H ow ev er , t he tr ust ee has no d uty to tak e aff ir mati v e act ion s bey ond that re q uired by sta tute or the deed o f t ru s tt o e n s u re a fa ir

sa le
. S e e P e t e r s o n , 9 8 0 S
. W
. 2 d a t8 2 2 ; Fi rs tS t a t e B a n kv. Kei lman, 851 S.W .2d 914, 924 (Tex .App. -A ust in 1993, w ri t denied) ; Pe ntad Joi nt V enture, 797 S.W .2d at 96. A truste e's dut ies are fulf illed by com plyi ng w ith the dee d of trust. First Stat e Bank , 851 S.W .2d at 925. A forecl osure sale may be rendered v oid i f there ex is ts11

an i rreg ula ri ty , t houg h sli g ht, that caus ed or co ntr ibu ted t o a s ale for a g ro ss ly i nadeq uate pr ic e. See S anders, 970 S. W .2d a t 726
. Appel l a n t s c ontend that Har mon i nacc uratel y des cr ibe d the aucti oned proper ty and, t h e re b y, a f

fe c t e d t h e b id d in g p ro c e s s . Eve n i f H a rm o n i n a c c u ra t e ly d e s c ri b e d t h e p ro p e rt y, no ev ide nce w as present ed to demonst ra te that an i rreg ula ri ty i n the proper

ty des cr ipt ion cause d or cont ribute d to lower bids, fewer bids, o r a g rossly inade quate p rice. Evi den ce mu st exi st tha t the irregular it y c a u s e d or cont ribute d to th e sale of prope rty for a grossly ina deq uate pr ic e. Am. Sav
. and Loan Ass ’n of Hous ton v . M usi ck , 531 S.W .2d 5 81, 5 87 (Tex . 197 5) . Vie w ing the ev ide nce in fav or of the nonmov ant, appel lan ts’ co ntent ion that the sales price w as grossly inade quate is notsu ppo rted by evidence co nside ring tha t, in addi ti on to the sal es pr ic e of $20,00 0, t he proper ty w as sol d encumbered bysu per ior l ien s of more t han $3 mil li on w hil e the proper ty had a fair

mar ketv alu e of $5.7 mil li on. See Richardso n v . Ken t, 47 S.W .2d 4 20, 4 25 (Te x .Civ .Ap p.– Dallas 193 2, no w rit) (a sales price of more than f if

ty perce nt of

p rope rty value is n ot grossly inad equate a s a m atte r of law ). Hen ce, w e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan ts hav e n o t sh o wn a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact o n w hether Har mon’s act ion s resul ted i n an unfair sa le or , i f an ir re g ula ri ty di d oc cur , w hether the i rreg ula ri ty

ca used or

co ntr ibu ted t o a g ro ss ly i nadeq uate pr ic e for the forecl osed p ro p e rt y. In rev iew ing the tr ial co urt’ s orde r g ra nti ng Har mon’s m oti on for su mmary

j udg ment, w e not e tha t app ell ants ’ cont enti ons that g enui ne i ss ues of materi al fact ex is t ar is e from appel lan ts’ pos it ion that the tr ial co urt s houl d hav e l o o ke d t o t he deed of tr ustas the documentauth or iz ing forec los ure proceed ing s. H ow ev er , w e c oncl ude t hat t he12

re org ani z ati on pl ans and Ag re ed Orde rs modified t he te rms of the d ebt s ecured by the deed of tr ustw hil e inc or porati ng and cont inu ed th e aut hor ity of the d eed of tr ust
. To the exte ntt ha t di fferen c es e x i s t be tw ee n th e te r ms o f t he o r i g i na l i nd eb te dn es s and t he t er ms of the debtas modi fied by the re org ani z ati on pl ans and Ag re ed Orders, w e c oncl ude t hat the reorg ani z ati on pl ans and Ag re ed Orders t ake precede nt as to forecl osure procedu re s in this case. T here fore, we conclude thatthe trial court did not error in grant ing H armo n’s moti on for summar

y jud g ment becau se appel lan ts did not show that any g enui ne i ss ues of materi al fact precl uded s ummary j udg ment i n fav or

of Har mon. Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e aff ir m.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice