Case Name: REGIONS BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steve MCKEEVER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-24
Citations: 419 F. App'x 536
Docket Number: No. 10-10574
Parties: REGIONS BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steve MCKEEVER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 536–537

Head Matter:
REGIONS BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steve MCKEEVER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10574
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 24, 2011.
Mark Douglas Cronenwett, Esq., Higier, Allen & Lautin, P.C., Addison, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas Giles Farrier, Murphy, Mahon, Keffler & Farrier, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Steve McKeever served as the borrower's guarantor in connection with a real estate loan from Plaintiff-Appellee Regions Bank to a third party. Following Regions's foreclosure, in which it purchased the encumbered property at the trustee's sale for $550,000, Regions sued McKeever to recover $335,416.84 as the deficiency remaining following that purchase. Responding to the suit, McKeever asserted a number of defenses including, inter alia, (1) the Supreme Court of Texas has never addressed the applicable portions of the Texas Property Code regarding waiver, (2) the waiver provision of the applicable section is void as an unenforceable penalty, (3) he did not clearly and unequivocally waive his right to have the deficiency measured by the fair market value of the property, and (4) genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and — especially—the district court's Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment of May 3, 2010. As a result of our de novo review, we are satisfied that district court's grant of summary judgment was providently granted for essentially the same reasons patiently and completely set forth in its Order. Accordingly, the Final Judgment of the district court and all orders issued in connection with this action are AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.