Opinion ID: 2794720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Texas Debt Collection Act

Text: The Berrys also allege that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the Lenders’ alleged breach of the TDCA. The Berrys cite four sections of the Act, Tex. Fin. Code §§ 392.301(a)(8), 392.302(a)(2), and 392.304(a)(8) & (19). The Berrys do not, however, offer any evidence or citation to the record in support of their position that there is an issue of material fact as to §§ 392.301(a)(8), 392.302(a)(2). As to § 392.304(a)(8) & (19), the Berrys first allege that the TPP was a binding contract. For the reasons explained above, this is not a genuine issue of material fact, supra. The Berrys also allege that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the Lenders acted fraudulently by sending the Berrys a “Notice of Defaulted Mortgage” on May 8, 2009, stating they owed $3,668.70, and then a “Mortgage Loan Statement” the next day, on May 9, stating that they owed $4,289.62. The mere existence of these two documents, however, does not demonstrate fraud or deceptive means as required under the TDCA. First, the Berrys offer no evidence that these documents are meant to convey the same information. They assume that the documents are referencing the same debt or amount owed. But, in any given account or mortgage there will be more than one amount owed. What is owed as a minimum payment and what is owed to eliminate an arrearage, for example, are two different things. The fact that the documents have different names further suggests that they serve distinct purposes. In sum, even drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Berrys, there is no genuine issue whether the Lenders used fraud 4 Case: 14-10474 Document: 00513010268 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 No. 14-10474 or deceit in violation of the TDCA. Hence, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment concerning the Lenders alleged violation of the TDCA. C. The Request for an Accounting and Declaratory Judgment and the Grant of Lender’s Counterclaim The Berrys’ other issues are not sufficiently briefed. The Berrys offer no law or analysis in support of these issues, and thus, they are not properly before this court. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) requires that the argument section of an appellant’s brief contain the “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Under this rule, the Berrys’ pleadings regarding their request for an accounting and the Lenders’ counterclaim are not sufficient to raise a claim.