i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 52 1- CV J eane tte M CC RE A , Appellant
v . COMMERC E TIT LE COMP ANY ,

Appellee Fr om the 38th J udicial District Court, Medina County , Texas

Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 06 -1 0- 18 08 8- A- CV Honora ble Mickey

R. Pennington, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 22, 2009 AFF I RMED J eane tte McCrea appea ls the t rial court’s order g rantingthe no evidenc e summary judgme nt motion filed by

Commerce T itle C o m p an y . McCrea contends she pr ovided more tha n a mer e scintilla of evidenc e to s how t hat C ommerce Title Company acte d neg lige ntly by omitti ng sever al liens from an O wner ship and Encumbra nce Report it prepar ed for

J ose and K elly

Salazar. We aff

irm the trial cour

t’s order
.04
- 08
- 00 52 1- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND In M ar c h o f

2 0 0 3 , J o s e an d

K e l l y S a l a z ar

p u r c h a s e d t w o t r a c t s o f

l an d i nM e d i n a

C o u n t y, Te xas. Pr ior

to t he c los ingdate , th e Sa la zar s h ir e d Co mme rc e Ti tle Co mp any to c on du c t a tit le
se arc h o n th e pr op e rt

y and to i ssu e an Owner sh ip a

nd En c umb ra

nc e Re po rt

ide nti fy ingany lie ns , encumbr ance s, or other clouds on title on the proper ty . The Ownership and E ncumbra nce Re port did no t id e nti fy any lie ns , and the Sa la zar s purc ha se d th e pr op e rt y . A t th e c los ing , th e Sa la zar s p a id Commerce T itle C o mpany for the a bstract, title sea

rche s, and the Ownership and E ncumbra nce Report. I n October

of 2004, the Salazars r ece ived a letter from F irst State Ba

nk of Uva lde. The le tter informed the Sala zars that the B ank held se vera l liens on the proper ty and intended to f

orec lose on them. Acc ording to the Salazars, they relied on the Owner ship and Encumbra nce repor t and wer e not awar e of a

ny liens held by

the B ank. In November of 2004, t he B ank for eclose d on a portion of the prope rty . After the fore closure, the Salazars also discover ed seve ral fe dera l tax liens dating back to 1986 encumber ing the proper ty . Th e Sa la zar s f

ile d s uit a g a ins t sev e ra l de fe nd ants a sse rt ingthe de fe nd ants fa ile d to dis c los e the numerous liens e ncumber ing the proper ty . The Salazars a sserted nume rous ca uses of a ction ag ainst the sellers f

rom whom they

purcha sed the prope rty as well as McCrea, who c onvey ed the pr op e rt y to t he se lle rs a

nd a lso fi na nc e d th e Sa la zar s’ purc ha se of the pr op e rt y . Th e Sa la zar s a lso sued Commerce Title Company , alleg ing that the company neg lige ntl y o m i t t ed the liens fr om the Owner ship and Encumbra nce Re port. Commerce T itle Company filed a no evidenc e motion for summary judgme nt, assertingthere
wa s no evi de nc e to sup po rt the Sa la zar s’ c la im o f n e g lig e nc e . T he Sa la zar s d id n ot f ile a re sp on se to Comm erce Titl e Company ’s motion; however, Mc Crea f iled a re sponse, alleg ing she was the04
- 08
- 00 52 1- CV

- 3- assig nee of

the Salazars’ claims ag ainst Commerce Title Company . McCrea attache d a letter

to her response which outlines the t erms of a settl ement between the Salazars and McCre a. The trial court g rante d Commerce T itle Company ’s motion. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW A m ov ant i s e nti tl ed to have a no e vid e nc e summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on

g ra nte d if “ the re is
no e vid e nc e of on e or mor e e sse nti a l ele me nts of a c la im or de fe ns e on wh ic h an a dv e rs e pa rt y wo uld have the burden of

proof at trial.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ); se e als o Fort W orth Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. v . Ree

se, 148 S.W .3d 94, 99 (Tex. 2004)
. To defe at a no evide nce summar y judgme nt motion, the non-movant must produce evidenc e ra ising a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ); Re ese , 148 S.W .3d at 99. “A g enuine issue of materia l fact exi sts if the nonmovant produce s more than a

scinti l l a o f evidence esta blishing the e x istence of

the cha lleng ed ele ment.” Re ese , 1 48 S.W. 3d

a t 99 ; see also King Ranch, Inc . v. Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). “Mo re th an a sc int ill a

of e vid e nc e e xists wh e n th e e vid e nc e ‘r ise s to a le ve l th a t w ou ld e na

ble
rea sonable a

nd fair- minded people to diffe r in their conc lusions.’” King Ranch, 118 S.W .3d at 751 (q u o t i n g Me rre ll D ow Pha rm s. In c . v . H av ne r, 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997)). D I S CUS S I ON McCrea contends the tria l court er red in g rantingCommerce T itle Company ’s mo t i on beca use she pr oduced mor e than a mere scintilla of evidenc e to show that Commerce Title Company owed a duty to the Salazars, bre ache d its duty , and the br eac h proxi mately ca u s ed d am age to the Salazars. Commerce Title Company , howeve r, conte n d s t h at M cC rea does not hold a leg al assig nment of the Salazars’ claims bec ause she only submitt ed evide nce of

a future intent to assign; there fore , no proper

response was filed to Commerc e Title Company ’s motion.04
- 08
- 00 52 1- CV

- 4- An as s ignme nt transfe rs some rig ht or interest fr om one per son to another. Commercial Structures and Interiors, Inc. v . Liberty Educ. Ministries, Inc. , 192 S.W .3d 827 , 833 (Tex. 2006); MG Bldg. Mate rials, L td. v. Moses Lopez Custom Home s, Inc., 179 S.W .3d 51, 58 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. denied) . An assig nment of a rig ht oc curs when an assig nor transf ers his or he r rig ht to perfor

mance from an oblig or to an a ssigne e, who then a cquire s the rig ht to suc h perf ormanc e from the obligor. Commercial Structures , 192 S.W .3d at 833; see also R E S TA TE ME NT (S EC OND ) OF C ON TR AC TS § 3 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 1 9 8 1 )
. “ [T ]h e a s s ign me n t i s the ac t b y whi ch the tra nsfer is effe cted.” Commercial Structures , 192 S.W .3d at 833 (e mphasis in origina l). “When construinga wr itten assignme nt, we apply the rules of i nterpre tation and construc tion
a pp lic a ble to co ntr a c ts” wi th our pr ima ry g oa l bei ng to as c e rt a in the pa rt ie s’ int e nt a s e xpre sse d in the written a ssignment. MG Bldg. , 1 79 S.W. 3d a t 58 ; see also Comme rcial Structures , 192 S.W .3d at 832. I f af

ter e x amining a

nd consideringthe entire writing as a whole, we c onclude that the
con tr act lan g ua g e c an b e g ive n a c e rt a in o r d e fi nit e me anin g and is n ot a mbi g uo us , th e n w e wi ll construe the assig nment as a matter of law. Commercial Structures , 1 92 S.W. 3d a t 83 2; MG Bldg. , 179 S
. W
. 3 d at 58. “A contrac t is not ambiguous mere ly beca use par ties to an ag ree ment have d i fferent interpr etations of a te rm or phra se.” Commercial Structures , 1 9 2 S. W. 3 d a t 8 3 2
. “A contra ct is ambig uous only if, afte r the application of established rules of c onstruction, an agree ment is still susceptible to more than one rea sonable mea ning.” Id
. If t h e c o n t r a c tc o n t a i n s anamb i g u i t y, then su m m ar y

judgme nt is im proper

beca use the c ontrac t’s meaningbecome s a fa ct issue. MG Bldg. , 179 S.W .3d at 58. He re , th e le tte r atta c he d to Mc Cr e a ’s su pp le me nta l r e sp on se state s th a t th e S a la zar s “ wi ll assig n to J eane tte McCrea , or her desig nee, all of t heir claims ag ainst Commerce Title Company .”04
- 08
- 00 52 1- CV

- 5- The pa rties’ use of

the phra se “w ill assign to J eane tte McCrea ” indicate s a fu t u re, pr ospective intention to assign rather than a pr esent intention to assig n. See Comm ercial Structures , 192 S.W .3d
a t 83 3; Allodial L td. P’ship v. North Texas Tollw ay Auth. , 176 S.W .3d 680, 683 (Tex. App.—Dallas 20 0 5 , no pet.) (indicating languag e in a wr itten assignme nt must reflec t a pre sent assig nment of ri g hts ); see also PapeEquip. Co. v. I.C.S., Inc. 7 3 7 S
. W
. 2 d 3 9 7 , 4 0 1 ( T e x. Ap p . — H o u s t o n [14 th Dist.] 1987, writ ref

’d n.r.e .) (holding that an agree ment is not an assig nment if there are no prese nt
wo rd s o f t

ra ns fe r) . T he re fo re , th e le tte r d oe s n ot e vid e nc e an as si gnme nt f ro m th e Sa la zar s to McCrea
. Even a ssuming the letter

acc omplished an eff

ective a ssignment, Mc Crea, a s a settling joint tortfea sor, may

not take an a ssignment of the claims of the orig inal plaintiffs, the Salazars, a nd pursue them a g ainst Commerce Title Com pany . See I nt’l Proteins Corp. , et. al. v. Ralston-Purina Co. , e t. a l. , 744 S.W .2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1988). “As a g ener al rule a ca use of a ction may

be assig ned, but it is c ontrary to public policy to pe rmit a joint tortfe asor the rig ht to purchase a ca use of a ction from a pla intiff to whose injury the tortfea sor contributed.” Id . at 93 4; see also Be ech Aircraft Corp. v. Jink ins, 73 9 S.W.2 d 19, 22 (T e x. 19 87 ). Th e re fo re , a lth ou g h, the Sa la zar s’ c la ims g e ne ra lly c ou ld be assig ned, it is contrar y to public policy

to permit McCrea , a joint tortfeasor , to pursu e the Salazars’ c laims via such an a ssignment. Int’l Proteins , 744 S.W .2d at 934. Be cause the re cord c ontains no evidenc e that the Salazars assig ned their cla im to McCrea or, in t he a lte rn a tiv e , b e c a

us e su c h an a ssi g nme nt is co ntr ary to p ub lic po lic y , th e Sa la zar s f a ile d to fi le any response to Comm erc e Title Company ’s motion for no evidenc e summary judgment. Absent such a response , the trial court proper ly g rante d Commerce Title Company ’s motion. Se e ge ne ra lly T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ); Michae l v. Dyk e , 41 S.W.3 d 746 , 751 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 01 , p e t.04
- 08
- 00 52 1- CV

- 6- denied) (indicatingif no response i s fi l ed that raises a g enuine issue of fac t, then the no evidenc e
summa ry jud g me nt mot ion mus t be g ra nte d) ; T I MOTHY P ATTON , S UMMARY J UDGME NTS I N T EX AS P RACT I CE , P ROCE D U RE , AND R EVI EW § 5 .0 5[1][a ] (3 d e d. 2008 ) ( “ [S]umma ry jud g me nt mu st

be rende red a

bsent a leg ally

adequa te re sponse by

the non-movant.” ). C ONCL US I ON Ba sed on the for eg oing, w e af firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.

Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice