Opinion issued December 20, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00827-CV

———————————

JOHNATHON DEAN, Appellant

V.

AURORA BANK, FSB F/K/A LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK, FSB, AND 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 74093

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Johnathon Dean is appealing the trial court’s grant of traditional 

and no-evidence summary judgment in favor of appellees, Aurora Bank, FSB f/k/a 
2

Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB1and Nationstar Mortgage LLC. In six issues, Dean 

argues that the trial court erred by: (1) granting appellees’ traditional and 

no-evidence summary judgment motion on Dean’s challenge to Nationstar’s 

standing; (2) granting appellees’ traditional and no-evidence summary judgment 

motion “without sufficient evidence related to conditions precedent;”2(3) granting 

appellees’ traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion on Dean’s 

wrongful foreclosure claim; (4) granting appellees’ traditional and no-evidence 

summary judgment motion on Dean’s breach of contract claim; (5) granting 

appellees’ traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion on Dean’s claim 

for declaratory relief; and (6) granting appellees’ hybrid summary judgment motion.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Background

Dean purchased the real property at issue in December 2005 and executed a 

deed of trust securing a promissory note to Lehman in order to finance the purchase.

Lehman assigned the deed of trust to Aurora, who later assigned the deed of trust to 

 

1 Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB changed its name to Aurora Bank, FSB in April 2009. 

Aurora Commercial Corp. is the successor entity to Aurora Bank, FSB f/k/a Lehman 

Brothers Bank, FSB.

2

 We liberally construe this issue as a challenge to the trial court’s grant of summary 

judgment on Dean’s wrongful foreclosure claim in light of evidence raising a 

genuine issue of material fact. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 

2005) (stating that courts should liberally construe pro se litigant’s pleadings and 

briefs).
3

Nationstar. On June 15, 2012, Aurora notified Dean that the servicing of his loan 

was being transferred to Nationstar effective July 1, 2012.

On April 9, 2013, Nationstar sent Dean a notice of default. On August 6, 2013, 

Alvin Gerbermann, who was appointed by Nationstar as a substitute trustee under 

the deed of trust, conducted a public foreclosure sale of the property. Nationstar 

purchased the property for $52,757.14 at that sale.

Dean filed suit on September 12, 2013, against appellees and Gerbermann. In 

his petition, Dean asserted that Lehman and Aurora did not have standing to 

foreclose on the property. Dean also asked the trial court to declare that: (1) Dean 

“did not breach the terms of the Notes and/or Deed;” (2) appellees “failed to comply 

with state non-judicial foreclosure procedures;” (3) “the foreclosure sale should be 

set aside as it was a wrongful sale;” (4) appellees “should provide a complete 

accounting to [Dean];” and (5) appellees “should show how Nationstar and/or 

[Lehman] have standing to proceed with foreclosure and/or possession.” Dean also 

demanded an accounting and sought an injunction prohibiting the defendants “from 

selling, attempting to sell, or causing to be sold the Property either under the power 

of sale clause contained in the deed of trust or by a judicial foreclosure action.”3

 

3 The trial court granted a temporary injunction on October 16, 2013, prohibiting the 

defendants “from taking possession, transferring or otherwise selling the Property.” 

That injunction expired on October 30, 2013. Although the trial court held a hearing 

on Dean’s application for a temporary injunction on October 25, 2013, nothing in 

the appellate record reflects that the application was granted.
4

Appellees and Gerbermann moved for summary judgment on March 6, 2015. 

On April 24, 2015, the trial court granted traditional and no-evidence summary 

judgment in Gerbermann’s favor and ordered that Dean take nothing on all of his 

claims against Gerbermann.4 The trial court also granted traditional and no-evidence 

summary judgment in favor of appellees on Dean’s accounting claim and ordered 

that Dean take nothing on his claim. The court also denied appellees’ traditional and 

no-evidence summary judgment motion with respect to Dean’s remaining claims. 

On July 15, 2015, appellees filed an amended motion for traditional and 

no-evidence summary judgment on Dean’s claims for declaratory relief, his claims 

against Aurora and Lehman, and his claim that Nationstar and Lehman lacked 

standing to foreclose on the property. As they did in their first summary judgment 

motion, appellees liberally construed Dean’s request for declaratory relief to also 

assert claims for wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract and they moved for 

summary judgment on those claims as well. 

In the no-evidence portion of their motion, appellees argued that they were 

entitled to summary judgment on Dean’s breach of contract claim and his related 

claim for declaratory relief because there was no evidence that: (1) appellees 

 

4 Gerbermann moved for summary judgment solely based on Property Code 

section 51.007. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 51.007(a) (West 2014). Section 

51.007 states that the trustee named in a suit may plead that he is not a necessary

party by a verified denial. Id. Dean is not challenging the trial court’s granting of 

summary judgment in favor of Gerbermann.
5

breached the note or deed of trust; (2) Dean complied with his obligations on the

note; or (3) that Dean suffered any damage as a result of Nationstar’s alleged breach 

of the note. 

Appellees also argued that they were entitled to no-evidence summary 

judgment on Dean’s wrongful foreclosure claims, including his related claims for 

declaratory relief, i.e., Dean’s request for declarations that appellees “failed to 

comply with state non-judicial foreclosure procedures” and “the foreclosure sale 

should be set aside as it was a wrongful sale.” Specifically, appellees argued that 

there was no evidence of any procedural defect in the foreclosure proceedings, a 

grossly inadequate selling price, or a causal link between the procedural defect and

the selling price. Appellees also argued that there was no evidence that Nationstar, 

the entity who conducted the foreclosure, lacked standing to foreclose on the 

property.

Appellees also moved for no-evidence summary judgment on Dean’s claim 

for declaratory relief. Specifically, appellees argued that there is “no evidence to 

support his claim for declaratory relief” because there is no evidence that a 

justiciable controversy exists as to the rights and status of the parties, or that the 

controversy would be resolved by the declarations sought. Appellees also argued 

that although Dean named Aurora and Lehman as defendants, he did not bring any 

“specific claims against them separate and apart from Nationstar” and there “is no 
6

evidence to prove Aurora or Lehman held the collateral loan documents (note/deed 

of trust) at the time of the foreclosure sale, serviced the loan after 07/01/12, or 

conducted the foreclosure sale.”

Dean filed a response to the hybrid summary judgment motion on August 18, 

2015, the day of the summary judgment hearing. That same day, the trial court signed 

a final judgment granting appellees’ amended motion for summary judgment and 

dismissing all of Dean’s claims against appellees with prejudice. This appeal 

followed.

Discussion

Appellees moved for summary judgment on all of Dean’s claims on both 

traditional and no-evidence grounds. Because the trial court did not specify its 

reasons for granting summary judgment, we will first review the propriety of the 

summary judgment under the no-evidence standard. See Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 

135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). 

A. No-Evidence Summary Judgment

We review a trial court’s summary judgment de novo. Valence Operating Co. 

v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. 

Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). In conducting our review, we take as true 

all evidence favorable to the non-movant, and we indulge every reasonable inference 

and resolve any doubts in the non-movant’s favor. Valence Operating, 164 S.W.3d 
7

at 661; Provident Life & Accident Ins., 128 S.W.3d at 215. If a trial court grants 

summary judgment without specifying the grounds for granting the motion, we must 

uphold the trial court’s judgment if any of the asserted grounds are meritorious. 

Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2005, pet. denied).

To prevail on a no-evidence summary-judgment motion, the movant must 

establish that there is no evidence to support an essential element of the 

non-movant’s claim on which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at 

trial. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 523–24 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). The party moving for no-evidence 

summary judgment must specifically state the elements as to which there is no 

evidence. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). The burden then shifts to the non-movant to 

present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to each of the elements 

challenged in the motion. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex.

2006); Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 524.

The non-movant must file its summary judgment response and evidence at 

least seven days before the summary judgment hearing, unless the non-movant gets 

permission to file it later. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). If the court allows the late filing 

of evidence, the court must affirmatively indicate in the record acceptance of the late 

filing. See Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657, 663 (Tex. 1996); 
8

Goswami v. Metro. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 751 S.W.2d 487, 490 n.1 (Tex. 1988). Absent 

any indication leave was granted, such as an order granting leave to late file, 

appellate courts must presume the trial court did not consider the late-filed evidence. 

See Fertic v. Spencer, 247 S.W.3d 242, 250–51 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. 

denied); see also Benchmark Bank, 919 S.W.2d at 663.

B. Appellees’ No-Evidence Summary Judgment Motion and Dean’s 

Response 

After the trial court granted their initial motion for traditional and no-evidence 

summary judgment on Dean’s accounting claim,

5

appellees filed an amended motion 

for summary judgment in which they argued that they were entitled to no-evidence 

summary judgment on all of Dean’s remaining claims, i.e., Dean’s claims for 

declaratory relief, breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, and his claims against 

 

5 Although Dean argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on 

his claim for declaratory relief, which includes a declaration that appellees “should 

provide a complete accounting to [Dean],” Dean is not specifically challenging the 

trial court’s granting of summary judgment in appellees’ favor on his accounting 

claim. Dean’s brief provides no legal authority or analysis regarding his claim for 

an accounting, and therefore, to the extent that Dean is attempting to challenge the 

trial court’s granting of summary judgment on this basis, such an issue is 

inadequately briefed and preserves nothing for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(i); see generally Strange v. Continental Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677–78 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied) (holding pro se litigant’s brief that failed to 

comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) preserved nothing for appellate 

review).
9

Aurora and Lehman, as well as his claim that Nationstar and Lehman lacked standing 

to foreclose on the property.6

Dean filed his response to appellees’ amended motion for summary judgment 

the day of the hearing. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c) (requiring non-movant to file 

response and evidence at least seven days before summary judgment hearing).

Although Dean requested permission to late-file his response and the docket sheet 

indicates that the trial court considered his request, there is no order granting Dean 

leave to file his response late, or any other affirmative indication in the record that 

the trial court accepted Dean’s untimely response. Accordingly, we must presume 

that the trial court did not consider Dean’s late-filed response and summary 

judgment evidence. See Fertic, 247 S.W.3d at 250–51; see also Benchmark Bank,

919 S.W.2d at 663. Because Dean did not properly file a response to raise a fact 

issue responding to the motions, the trial court had no option but to grant appellees’ 

no-evidence motion which addressed all of Dean’s remaining causes of action. See 

Fertic, 247 S.W.3d at 250–51; see also Benchmark Bank, 919 S.W.2d at 663.7

 

6 We liberally construe Dean’s challenges to Nationstar, Lehman, and Aurora’s 

standing to foreclose on the property to assert a cause of action for wrongful 

foreclosure based upon a procedural defect in the foreclosure sale. See generally 

Tesch v. Equity Secured Capital, L.P., No. 03-13-00539-CV, 2015 WL 8587311, at 

*2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 11, 2015, pet. denied) (identifying challenge to 

defendant’s standing to foreclose as defect in foreclosure sale proceedings for 

purposes of wrongful foreclosure claim).

7 On appeal, Dean asserts that he also pleaded a cause of action for fraudulent 

misrepresentation. Dean does not argue that appellees’ no-evidence 
10

Generally, the non-movant who fails to file a response and produce evidence 

is restricted to arguing on appeal that the no-evidence summary judgment is 

insufficient as a matter of law. See Roventini v. Ocular Sciences, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 

719, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that when 

non-movant does not file response, controlling issue is whether summary judgment

motion was sufficient to warrant no-evidence summary judgment and thus shifted 

burden to non-movant to produce evidence raising genuine issue of material fact). A 

no-evidence summary judgment is insufficient as a matter of law if the motion is 

conclusory or fails to challenge a specific essential element of a cause of action for 

which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 724; see 

also Callaghan Ranch, Ltd., v. Killam, 53 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2000, pet. denied) (citing McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 

342 (Tex. 1993)) (holding that no-evidence motion for summary judgment that fails 

to specifically challenge essential element of alleged cause of action, or is 

conclusory, is legally insufficient as matter of law). Dean does not argue on appeal 

that appellees’ no-evidence motion was conclusory or that it failed to challenge

 

summary-judgment motion is deficient because it does not address this claim, nor 

does he challenge the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of “all claims” asserted 

against appellees by Dean. Moreover, Dean’s brief contains no legal authority or 

analysis with respect to his fraudulent misrepresentation claim and, therefore, to the 

extent that Dean is attempting to challenge the trial court’s judgment with respect 

to this claim, the issue is inadequately briefed and preserves nothing for our review. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).
11

specific elements of any of his causes of action. To the extent that Dean is attempting 

to challenge the legal sufficiency of appellees’ no-evidence summary judgment 

motion, the issue is inadequately briefed and preserves nothing for our review. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); see generally Strange v. Continental Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 

676, 677–78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied) (holding pro se litigant’s brief 

that failed to comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h) preserved nothing 

for appellate review).

We overrule Dean’s first, second, third, fourth, and fifth issues.

Hybrid Summary Judgment Motions

In his sixth issue, Dean argues that the trial court erred by granting summary 

judgment in appellees’ favor because, as a pro se litigant, he was prejudiced by 

appellees’ filing of a hybrid traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion. 

Under Texas law, a party seeking summary judgment may combine in a single 

motion a request for summary judgment under the no-evidence standard with a 

request under the traditional, as-a-matter-of-law standard. Binur v. Jacobo, 135 

S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. 2004) (stating that Rule of Civil Procedure 166a does not 

prohibit filing of hybrid summary judgment motion). Accordingly, appellees’ 

decision to file a hybrid motion for summary judgment in a suit against a pro se 

litigant is not a valid basis for reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment 

in appellees’ favor. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (stating 
12

that although courts liberally construe pro se litigant’s pleadings and briefs, pro se

litigants are held to same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with 

applicable laws and rules of procedure).8

We overrule Dean’s sixth issue. 

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Russell Lloyd

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.

 

8 Dean, who was originally represented by counsel, also argues that the trial court’s 

judgment should be reversed because he was prejudiced by the granting of his 

attorney’s motion to withdraw on August 27, 2014—over six months before 

appellees filed their first summary judgment motion (March 6, 2015). Dean’s brief, 

however, provides no analysis or legal authority in support of his position. Thus, to 

the extent that Dean is attempting to challenge the trial court’s granting of the 

motion to withdraw, such an issue is inadequately briefed and preserves nothing for 

our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).