1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 6 -4 4 5 - CV
H. L AN CE STI NN ET T AN D APPE L L AN TS M ET Z B. CA STL EB ERR Y V . SFJV

- 200 3- 1, LL C A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 415TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F PARKERCO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- Thi s i s a s ui ton a pr om i ss ory no t e. Appel l ant s H . La n c e S ti n n ettan d M et z B. C a s tleber ry appeal f r om a sum m ary j udg m enti n f avorofA ppel l ee S FJV
-20 03
- 1, LLC . I n t hr ee i ssues, A ppel l ant s ar gue t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by gr ant i ng sum m ar y j udg m entbe c ause ( 1) t he sum m ary j udg m entevi dence
c o n s i s te d s u b s ta n ti a l l y o f a ffid a v i ts w h i c h w e re n o t c o m p e te n t s u m m a ry2

ju d g m e n te v id e n c e ; (2 ) A p p e lle e ’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t e v id e n c e d id n o tp r o p e r ly est abl i sh ow ner shi p of t he note; and ( 3) A ppel l ee’ s sum m ary j udg m entevi dence
w a s i n te rn a l l yi n c o n s i s te n t a n d i n h e re n tl yu n re l i a b l e . W e a ffir m . Back gr ound In 199 9, A ppe l l ant s pur cha se d r ea l pr ope rt y i n Par ke r C ount y un d e r a
w a rra nt y de ed w i t h a ve ndor ’ s l i en. Appel l ant s exe cut ed a n ot e a nd de ed of t r u s t in favo rofTexas B ank t o f und t he pur chase. I n 2 00 4, A ppel l ee sued A ppe l l ant s, al l egi ng t hatA ppe l l eeha d be com e h ol der of t he not e a nd de ed of t r us tt hr ough a s er i es o f as si gnm ent s and t hatt he not e w asduean d unp ai d. A ppel l ee sought r esci ssi on of t he vend or ’ s l i en and no n ju d ic ia l f or ecl osur e. A p p e l l a n ts fi l e d a g e n e ra l d e n i a l . A ppe l l eef i l ed a f i r st m ot i on f or su m m ary j udgm enti n M ar ch 200 5. The
m o t i o n w a ss u p p o rte d b yth e a ffid a v i t o f B e c k yH o w e l l , th e “ fo re c l o s u re super vi sor ” em pl oyed b y A ppel l ee’ s t r i al counsel . H ow el l aver r ed t hatshe had per sonal know l edge oft he f act s r eci t ed i n heraf f i davi tbecause she w as “re sp o n sibl e for a l l d e fau l t se rvi c i n g ac tiv it ie s i n v o l v e d i n rel a ti o n to [ A ppel l ant s’ ] l oan on behal fof [ A ppel l ee] . ” Sh e f urt heraver r ed t hatshe w as “c us t odi an of[ A ppe l l ee ’s ] re cor dsw i t h r es pec tt o de f aul ts ervi ci ng of [A p p e l l a n ts’] l o a n .” I n tw o p a rag rap h s, h e r affi d a v i t i n e x p l i c a b ly refe rs to3

A ppe l l ant s as“ D ec ede nt . ” She ave r r ed t hatA ppe l l eew ast he l aw f ul hol derof th e n o te a n d the b e n e fi c i a ry o f t h e d e e d o f t rus t. H e r affi d a v it g o e s o n to pur port edl y aut henti cat e sever al docum ent s as A ppel l ee’ s busi ness re c o rd s, i ncl udi ng t he not e; t he w ar r ant y dee d w i t h ven dor ’ s l i en; t he dee d oft r us t ; an d
as si gnm ent s o f th e l i en f r om Texa s Bankt o Chas e M anh att an M ort gag e C o rpo rati o n , fr o m C h a se to the S e c reta ry o f H o u sing an d U rba n D e v e l o p m e n t, and f r om t he S ecr et ar y t o A ppel l ee. C opi es oft hose docu m ent s ar e att ached to H o w e l l ’ sa f f i da vi t , a nd t hec op i e so fa l l o ft hed oc um e nt se xc e ptt hen o te
a p p e a r to b e c e rti fi e d c o p i e su n d e r th e s e a l o f th e P a rk e r C o u n tyC l e rk . A p p e l l a n ts fi l e d a s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t re s p o n s e , a rg u i n g th a t H o w e l l ’s
a ffid a v i t s h o w sth a t s h e w a s , a t m o s t, th e re c o rd sc u s to d i a n f o r A p p e l l e e ’s
cou ns el , r at hert han A ppe l l eei t se l f . Appel l ant s f urt her obs erved t hatt he cop y oft he not e a t t ac hed t o How el l ’ s af f i dav i t bor e end or se m ent s ( 1) t o Chas e a nd (2 ) fro m C h a s e to a n u n n a m e d p e rs o n b u t n o e n d o rs e m e n t to A p p e l l e e . In J u ly2 0 0 5 , A p p e lle e f i l e d “ M o v a n t ’s 1 s tA m e n d e d A f f id a v it .” T h is af f i davi tw as execut ed by R ogerL. Si m pson, A ppel l ee’ s “vi ce pr esi dent ofl oan d oc um en t ati on . ” A pa rt f r om hi s na m e an d j ob t i t l e, S i m ps on ’ s affid a v itis
v i rtu a l l yi d e n ti c a l to H o w e l l ’s , e v e n tw i c e re fe rri n g to A p p e l l a n ts a s“ D e c e d e n t.” A t t ac hed t o Si m ps on’ s af f i dav i ti s ano t herco py o ft he not e, i de n ti ca l t o t he4

copy at ta ched t o H ow el l ’ s af f i davi t . Rat hert han at t ach copi es oft he ot her
r el evantdocum ent s, hi s af f i davi tr ef er s t o t he copi es att ached t o H ow el l ’ s. A ppel l ant s f i l ed a suppl em ent al sum m ary j udg m entr esponse, ar gui ng t hat t he t r i a l c o u rt s h o u l d b e s u s p i c i o u s o f S i mp s o n ’ s a f f i d a v i t b e c a u s e i t d i d not cl ea r l y i den t i f y hi s j ob du t i esw i t h Appel l ee , be ca u s e i t w a s a se r i esof
co n c lu s or y st at em ent s ofw hi ch t he af f i antdi d not dem onst r at e per sonal k n o w l e d g e , a n d b e c a u s e i t w a si d e n ti c a l to H o w e l l ’sa ffid a v i t. A p p e l l e e fi l e d “P l a i n ti ff’ s 1 st A m e n d e d M o ti o n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t” i n Janu ar y 20 06 . Th i s m ot i on w as support ed by t he af f i davi tofJul i e M at t a, A ppel l ee’ s “as si st antsecr et ar y. ” A gai n, apartf r om he r n a m e a n d j ob t i t l e, M a tta’s a ffi d a v it i s i d e n ti c a l to H o w e l l ’s an d S i m p so n ’s. B u t attac h e d to M a tta’s a ffi d a v i t w a s a n o th e r co p yo f t h e n o te, th i s ti m e b e a ri n g en d o rse m e n ts f r om Texas B ank t o C hase, f r om C hase t o t he S ecr et ary of H ousi ng and U r ban D e v e l o p m e n t , a n d fr o m the S e c reta ry to A p p e l l e e . Like S i m p so n ’s affi d a v i t, M at t a’ s r ef er s t o t he ot herdocum ent s att ached t o H ow e l l ’ s af f i davi tas opp osed t o at t achi ng new copi es. A ppel l ant s f i l ed a “second suppl em ent al r es p o n se” t o A ppel l ee’ s f i r st
am ended sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i on, ar gui ng t hatM at t a’ s a ff i davi tw as def ect i ve f ort he sam e r easons t hatH ow el l ’ s and Si m pson’ s w er e def ect i ve.5

I n August2006 , A ppe l l e e f i l ed “Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Secon d ( 2nd) M ot i on f or Sum m ary Ju dgm ent . ” Thi s f i nalm ot i on w as s u p p o rted by t he af f i dav i tof G e o ffre yN i x o n , A p p e l l e e ’s“ V Po f L o a n D o c u m e n ta ti o n .”O n c e m o re , a p a rt f r om hi s nam e and j ob t i t l e, N i xon’ s af f i davi t i s vi rt ual l y i denti cal t o H ow el l ’ s, S i m p s o n ’s , a n d M a tta ’s , th o u g h i t d i d n o t re fe r to A p p e l l a n ts a s“ D e c e d e n t.” N i x o n ’s affi d a v i t a t t a c h e d a c o p yo f t h e n o te s h o w i n g allthe en d o rse m e n ts begi nni ng w i t h T exas Bank an d endi ng w i t h A ppel l ee. I tal so att ached cert i f i ed
c o p i e s u n d e r th e P a rk e r C o u n ty C l e rk ’s s e a l o f th e w a rra n tyd e e d w i th v e n d o r’s l i e n , th e d e e d o f tru s t, a n d th e a s s i g n m e n ts o f th e l i e n . A ppel l ant s f i l ed anothe r s u m m ary j udg m entr esponse, ar gui ng t hat b e c a u s e H o w e l l , S i m p s o n , M a tta , a n d N i x o n a l l c l a i m e d t o b e A p p e l l e e ’s
rec o rds cu sto d i a n an d b e c a u se the co p i e s o f th e n o te a ttac h e d to the affi d a v i ts d i d n o t m a tc h o n e a n o th e r, I ti s r ea so na b l e t o c onc l udet hatoneorm or e a m ong [ t hem ] ha ve n o t sw o rn truth fu l l y to the C o u rtreg a rding the N o te. D e fen d a n ts a re u n a b le t o know w hi ch oft he A f f i ant s ar e unt r ut hf ul i n w hi ch r espect s, w i t hou ta ski l l ed f or ensi c exam i nat io n oft he cl ai m ed o ri g in a l N o t e (s), w h i c h the D e fen d a n ts a skthe C o u rtto o rde r t o det er m i n e th e au t hen t i ci t y a nd pr oba bl e d at e( s) ofm ak i ng oft he v a ri o u si n d o rs e m e n t m a rk so n th e v a ri o u s l yc l a i m e d N o te (s ).6

A ppe l l ant s a r gue d t hatt he t hes e p r obl em s pr ec l ude d s um m ary j udgm ent bec aus e Appel l eeha d not pr ove n as a m att er of l aw t hat i t w ast he hol derof t he note. T h e t r ia l c o u rt g r a n t e d s u m m a ryju d g m e n tin A p p e lle e ’s f a v o rin Sept em ber2006 , an d t hi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. S t andar d ofRev i ew I n a su m m ary j udgm ent ca se , t he i ss ue on a ppe ali s w het hert he m ova nt
m ett he su m m ary j udgm entbur den b y e st abl i sh i ng t hatno g enu i ne i ss ue of
m at er i al f ac tex i st s and t hatt he m ova nti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entasa m att erof l a w . T EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); S w. E le c . Po wer Co . v. Gran t, 73 S. W . 3d 211, 2 1 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); City of Hous ton v. Clear Creek Ba si n Auth. , 589 S. W . 2d 671, 678 ( Tex. 197 9) . The bur den of pr oof i s on t he m ova nt , and al l doub t s abo ut t he exi st enc e o fa gen ui ne i ss ue ofm at er i alf ac tar e re so l ved ag ai ns tt he
m o v a n t. S w. E

le c . Po wer Co ., 73 S. W . 3d a t215. W hen r evi ew i ng a su m m a ry ju dgm ent , w e t ake as t r ue al l evi dence f avo r abl e t o t he nonm ova nt , an d w e i ndul ge e v e ry r ea so nab l e i nf er enc e a nd
re s o l v e a n yd o u b ts i n th e n o n m o v a n t’sfa v o r. Valenc e Operati ng Co. v. D o rse tt, 1 6 4S .W .3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). E v i d e n c e th a t fa v o rsth e m o v a n t’s p o s i ti o n w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e re d u n l e s s i t i su n c o n tro v e rte d . Grea tA m . Res erve7

I ns . Co. v. San Antoni o Pl um bi ng Supply Co. , 3 9 1 S .W .2 d 4 1 , 4 7 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ). I ft he unc ont r ove rt ed evi den cei s f r om an i nt er es t ed w i tn e s s , i tdoe s not hi ng
m or e t h a n ra is e a f acti ssue unl ess i ti s cl ear , posi t i ve and di r ect , ot her w i se cr edi bl e and f r ee f r om contr adi ct i ons and i ncon si st enci es, and coul d have been
re a d i l yc o n tro v e rte d . T EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); T ric o T e ch s . Co r

p . v. Mo n tiel, 9 4 9 S .W .2 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ). Th e sum m ar y j udg m entw i l l be af f i r m ed onl y i f t he r ecor d est abl i shes t hat th e m o v a n t h a s c o n c l u s i v e l yp ro v e d a l l e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f th e m o v a n t’s
c a u s e o f a c ti o n o r d e fe n s e a s a m a tte r o f l a w . Clea r Cre ekBa sin , 589 S . W . 2d
a t678. D i sc us si on I n t hei rf i r sti ss ue, A ppe l l a nt s ar guet hatA ppe l l ee ’ s af f i dav i t s ar e n ot
com pet entsum m ar y j udg m entevi dence b e cause t hey do notest abl i sh each af f i ant s’ pe r so nalkn ow l edg e o ft he r el eva ntf ac t s, nam el y, t hatA ppe l l eei s t he hol deroft he note and t he aut henti ci t y oft he r el evantdocum ent s. To es t abl i sh pe r so nalkn ow l edg e , a n a f f i antne ed onl y s how how t he
a ffian t b e c a m e p e rs o n a l l y fa m i l i a r w i th th e fa c ts . D i cke yv. ClubCo r

p . o f A m. , 12 S. W . 3d 17 2, 17 6 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 20 00 , pet . deni ed) . “The per sonal kno w l edg e r equ i r em enti s s a ti s fi ed i ft he af f i dav i ts uf f i ci ent l y de sc r i best he8

r e la t io n s h ip b e t w e e n t h e a f f i a n ta n d t h e c a s e s o t h a titm a yb e re a s o n a b ly
as su m ed th a t th e a f f i antha s per so nalkn ow l edg e o ft he f ac t s st at ed i n t he af f i davi t . ” S tu cki

v. No b le , 9 6 3 S .W .2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 0 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n t o n io 1 9 9 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). A n a f f i ant ’ s unc hal l eng ed st at em entofem pl oym entorco nne ct i on t o t he
c a s ec a n b e s u fficie n t to e s ta b l i s h p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e . S ee Di ckey , 12 S . W . 3d at17 6 ( hol di ng af f i ant ’ s unch al l enged st at em ent t hathe w as m ovant’ s gener al
m a n a g e r s u fficie n t to s h o w p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f fa c ts re l a te d to e m p l o y e r’s b u s i n e s s ); Jacks on T. Ful gham Co. , I

nc. v. StewartTitle Guar. Co. , 649 S. W . 2d 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 1 9 8 3 , w ri t re f’d n .r.e .) (h o l d i n g a f f i a n t’s
unc hal l eng ed st at em entt hathew asvi cepr es i den toft i t l e c om pan y s uf f i ci ent to s h o w p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f fa c ts re g a rd i n g p ro m i s s o ryn o te ); Robi ns on v. Ba n k O n eNa t. A ss ’n , N o . 0 4
- 0 3
- 0 0 3 4 3
- C V , 2 0 0 4W L2 8 3 6 7 , a t* 2 ( Tex. A pp. — S an A nt oni o Jan. 7, 20 04 , pet . deni ed) ( hol di ng af f i ant s’ st at em ent s t hat th e yw e re m o v a n t’s“ fo re c l o s u re s p e c i a l i s t” a n d m o v a n t’sc o u n s e l ’s

“ fo re c l o s u re m a n a g e r”s u fficie n t to e s ta b l i s h p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e w i th re g a rd to n o te a n d d e e d o f tru s t). H ow el l , Si m ps on, M att a, and N i xon ave r r ed t hatt heyw er e, r es pec t i vel y, A ppel l ee’ s counsel ’ s “f or ecl osur e supervi sor , ” “vi ce pr es id e n tofl oan9

d o c u m e n ta ti o n ,”“ a s s i s ta n t s e c re ta ry ,”a n d “ V Po f L o a n D o c u m e n t a ti o n .” A p p e l l a n ts d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e th e s e s ta te m e n ts . W e h o l d t h a tth e yw e re su f f i ci ent t o es t abl i sh t he af f i ant s’ per so nal kno w l edg e a s r ec or dscu st odi ans oft he note and r el at ed docu m ent s. W e over r ul e A ppel l ant s’ f i r sti ssue. I n t hei rs ec ond i ss ue, A ppe l l ant s ar guet hatt he s u m m ary j udgm ent evi den cedoe s notpr ovet hat A ppe l l ee ow nst he not e b ec aus e Appel l eedi d not pr es entt he or i gi nalnot e t o t he t r i alco urtan d t he cop i e s a tta che d t o t he
sum m ar y j udg m entaf f i davi t s di f f er ed i n m i noraspect s , e .g ., t he copi es att ac hed t o How el l ’s a n d Si m ps on’ s af f i dav i t s di d notr ef l ec tal l oft he end or se m ent s butt he cop i esatt ac hed t o M att a’ s and N i xon’ s af f i dav i t s di d. A p p e l l a n ts’ arg u m e n t f a il s f o rthre e rea so n s. Fir st, al l fou r affi a n ts
a v e rr e d tha t A p p e l l e e w a s th e h o l d e r of the n o t e . S e c o n d , a p h o to c o p yo f a
n o t e a t t a c h e d t o a n a f f id a v its w e a r in g t h a titisa t r u e a n d c o r r e c tc o p yis
c o m p e te n t s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t p ro o f. Zar ges v. Bevan , 652 S . W . 2d 368, 369 ( Tex. 1983 ) ( percu r i am ) . Thi r d, t he m i nordi f f er enc esbe t w ee n t he cop i esof t he note at t ached t o t he af f i davi t s does notcr eat e a genui ne i ssue ofm at er i al fa c t a s to w h o h e l d th e n o te . T h e n o te sa tta c h e d to H o w e l l ’sa n d S i m p s o n ’s af f i dav i t s ar e c l ea r l y e ar l i erco pi esoft he sa m e not e a t t ac hed t o M att a’ s and N i xon’ s af f i dav i t s; t he onl y di f f er enc e i s th e abs enc e o n t he H ow el l an d10

Si m ps on c opi esoft he l at eren dor se m ent s f r om Chase to the Se cr et ary of H o u s i ng and U r ban D eve l opm ent and f r om t he Secr et ary t o A ppe l l ee . W e t her ef or e over r ul e A ppel l ant s’ second i ssue. I n t hei r t hi r d i ssue, A ppel l ant s ar gue t hat “gl ar i ng in c o n si st enci es” b e tw e e n the fou r affi d a v i ts— n a m e l y , th e fac t th a t a l l fo u r affi a n ts c l a i m e d to be A ppe l l ee ’ s r ec or dscu st odi ansan d t he di f f er enc esbe t w ee n t he cop i es oft he
n o te s a tta c h e d to th ea ffid a v i ts
— r e n d e re d th e m i n c o m p e te n t a ss u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e . A p p e l l a n ts a l so arg u e tha t t h e alm o st-ve rba ti m si m i l a ri ty
o f t h e a ff id a v its to o n e a n o th e r re n d e rs th e m u n re li a b l e a n d i n c o m p e te n t. In
o th e r w o rd s , A p p e l l a n ts a rg u e th a t th e a ffid a v i ts a re u n re l i a b l e b e c a u s e th e ya re bot h i nconsi stent an d too c onsi

stent . W e h aveal r ea dy c ons i der ed t he di f fe re nce s bet w ee n t he cop i esoft he not esatt ac hed t o t he af f i dav i t s and r ej ec t ed t hos e d i f f er enc esasr ai s i n g a genu i ne i ssue ofm at er i al f act . That al l f ouraf f i ant s i denti f y t h e m sel ves as A p p e l l e e ’ sr e c o r d sc u s t o d i a n sl i k e w i s e d o e sn o tr e n d e rt h e a f f i d a v i t sc o l l e c t i v e ly i ncom pet ent ; A ppel l ant s poi nt t o no aut hor i t y f or t he pr opo si t i on t hatt her e can b e o n l yo n e c u sto d i a n o f rec o rds fo r a n en ti ty, a n d w e p rev i o u sly n o ted tha t a hol der ’ s em pl oye e a nd t he em pl oye e of t he hol der ’ s cou ns elm ay bot h, ast he h o l d e r’sre c o rd sc u s to d i a n s , a u th e n ti c a te a n o t e a n d d e e d o f tru s t. S ee11

Robi ns on , 2004 W L2836 7, at*2. Fi nal l y, t he boi l er pl at e s i m i l ar i t y oft he af f i davi t s does not m ake t hem

— nei t her si ngu l ar l y norc o ll ect i vel y— l ess com pet entt han i fea ch r el at ed t he sa m e f ac t s i n uni quel ang uag e. I fan yt hi ng, th e co n sisten c yo f t h e affi d a v i ts ten d s to l e n d g r e a ter cre d i b i l i ty to the fac ts t her ei n r eci t ed. W e over r ul e A ppel l ant s’ t hi r d i ssue. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n ts ’ th re e i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and G A RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 3, 2008