1 No. 03

- 15

- 00020

- CV

______________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN

______________________________________________________

JAMES V. LON G

,

Appellant

,

vs.

SOUTHWEST FUNDING LP, et al.

, Appellee s

.

______________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 126 th Judicial District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 10

- 003483

_____________ _________________________________________

APPELLEE SOUTHWEST FUNDING L

. P

. ’S BRIEF

Brian P. Casey

State Bar No. 00793476

Douglas G. Dent

State Bar No. 24078062

6836 Bee Caves, Bldg. 3, Suite 303

Austin, Texas 78746

Tel.: 512

- 617

- 6409

Fax: 888

- 530

- 9616

bcasey@caseylawtx.com

ddent@caseylawtx.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

SOUTHWEST FUNDING, L.P. ACCEPTED

03-15-00020-CV

5775876

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/22/2015 4:50:02 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ........................ 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ .................. 3

I. STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

................................ ......................... 4

II. RESTATED ISSUE PRESENTED

................................ ................................ .. 4

III. ADOPTION AND JOINDER

................................ ................................ ......... 4

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ .............. 4

V. SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT

................................ ............. 5

VI. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

................................ .............................. 5

VII. CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ 73 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Vale nce Operating Co. v. Dorsett , 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005) .................5

Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989)......................................5

Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc. , 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex. 2013)....................5

Lockett v. HB Zackry Co. , 285 S.W.3d 63, 72 (Tex .App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.]

2009, no pet.)...........................................................................6

McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist. , 858 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex. 1993)........64 I . STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellee Southwest Funding does not request oral argument and does not

believe that oral argument is necessary to address the issues raised by this appeal.

II . RESTATED ISSUE PRESENTED

Issue No. 1 : Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor

of Appellees

. 1

III . ADOPTION AND JOINDER

Ap pellee Southwest Funding, L.P. hereby joins, adopts and incorporates by

reference all statements and arguments contained in Appellees IndyMac Mortgage

Services, OneWest Bank, FSB and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.’s brief filed

with this Court on June 22 , 2015.

I V. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2

Southwest Funding, L.P. (“ Southwest Funding ”) was not a party to the

underlying foreclosure proceeding. The Deutsche Bank defendants filed their

motion for summary judgment with the trial court on November 12, 2013. 3 Th e

trial court granted the Deutsche Bank defendants’ motion on January 21, 2014. 4

Southwest Funding joined in the Deutsche Bank defendants’ motion on December

1 App ellant does not challenge the trial court’s granting of summary judgment against

2 Because Southwest Funding joins and adopts the other arguments and statements in co

Appellees’ brief, this Statement of Facts includes only additional facts necessary to Southwest

Funding’s additional argument set forth below.

3 CR 182.

4 CR 350.5 23, 2013

. 5 Appellant did not file any response to Southwest Funding’s joinder. 6

On October 9, 2 014, the trial court granted Southwest Funding’s motion for

summary judgment. 7

V . SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against Appellant

and in favor of Appellee Southwest Funding, L.P. on Appellant’s TILA claim.

Appellant failed to respond to Southwest Funding’s motion for summary judgm ent,

and therefore, Appellant may not challenge the factual evidence on appeal.

V I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

On appeal, a trial court’s summary judgment is reviewed d e novo. 8 When

the trial court’s order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds on

which the court relied for its ruling, summary judgment will be affirmed on appeal

if any theories advanced are meritorious. 9 When an appellant fails to chall enge a

ground on which a trial court may have granted summary judgment

— either

properly or improperly, then summary judgment must be affirmed. 10

Southwest Funding’s joinder in the other Appellee s ’ motion for summary

judgment before the trial court was approp riate, as Texas courts recognize the

5 CR 316.

6 Appellant’s summary judgment response to the Deutsche Bank defendants’ motion (CR 255)

does not address Southwest Funding’s request for summary judgment.

7 CR 363.

8 Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett , 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005)

.

9 Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989).

10 Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc. , 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex. 2013).6 adoption of a co

- party’s motion for summary judgment as a legitimate procedural

practice. 11 However, Appellant’s failure to respond to Southwest Funding’s

motion is fatal to this appeal.

A non

- movant must present to t he trial court, by written answer or response,

any issues defeating the movant’s entitlement to summary judgment. 12 The effect

of a failure by a non

- movant to raise an issue is that the non

- movant is limited on

appeal to arguing the legal sufficiency of th e grounds presented by the movant. 13

Following Southwest Funding’s filing of its joinder in the Deutsche Bank

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Appellant failed to file any response.

Appellant even failed to appear at the hearing on Southwest Fundin g’s request for

summary judgment. As a result of these failures, Appellant’s appellate issues with

respect to Southwest Funding are limited. Appellant may not raise any issue

regarding a genuine issue of material fact because Appellant failed to make suc h

argument before the trial court.

The trial court found that Southwest Funding was entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. The arguments set forth by Appellant on appeal are

factual in nature and do not address the legal sufficiency of Southwest Funding’s

summary judgment. Because Appellant failed to raise any fact issues in response

11 Lockett v. HB Zackry Co. , 285 S.W.3d 63, 72 (Tex.App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.] 2009, no pet.)

12 McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist.

, 858 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex. 1993).

13 Id.7 to Southwest Funding’s motion for summary judgment before the trial court,

Appellant may not now raise such issues. Accordingly, the trial court’s summary

judgment must be affirmed.

VII

. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellee Southwest Funding, L.P. respectfully

requests that this Court and affirm the Trial Court’s judgment, and grant such other

relief to which Appellee may be entitled.

Respectfully subm itted,

By: /s/ Brian P. Casey

Brian P. Casey

State Bar No. 00793476

Douglas G. Dent

State Bar No. 24078062

6836 Bee Caves, Bldg. 3, Suite 303

Austin, Texas 78746

Tel.: 512

- 617

- 6409

Fax: 888

- 530

- 9616

bcasey@caseylawtx.com

ddent@caseylawtx.com8 Certificate of Service

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, I h e reby certify that on June 22 , 2015 , I

served the foregoing document via e

- file or facsi mile on the following persons:

James D. Pierce

1 Sugar Creek Center 1080

Sugar Land, Texas 77478

jim@jamespierce.com

Bradley E. McLain

Daniel P. Tobin

J. Garth Fennegan

SettlePou

3333 Lee Parkway, Eight h Floor

Dallas, Texas 75219

Fax: 214

- 526

- 4145

/s/ Brian P. Casey

Brian P. Casey

Certificate of Compliance

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3), I certify that this document contains

1,083 words.

/s/ Brian P. Casey

Brian P. Casey