Court Opinion

ID: 4038644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 21:58:08.911999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:13.938428
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                   13-14-00644-CV
                                                                     THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                           CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
                                                                             12/30/2014 6:19:19 PM
                                                                                 DORIAN RAMIREZ
                                                                                            CLERK

           No. 13-14-00644-CV                            FILED IN
                                                 13th COURT OF APPEALS
                                             CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
                                                 12/30/2014 6:19:19 PM
                                                   DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS          Clerk
               FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                   AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
        _________________________________________________
      LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                             Appellant,
                                v.
            MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                             Appellee.

On Appeal from the 107th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas, the
                 Honorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr., Presiding

                SECOND AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT

        Selim H. Taherzadeh                     Michelle Peritore
         Taherzadeh, PLLC                      Taherzadeh, PLLC
       State Bar No. 24046944                State Bar No. 24088212
         st@taherzlaw.com                      mp@taherzlaw.com
5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1000 East   5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1000 East
        Addison, TX 75001                      Addison, TX 75001
        Tel. (469) 791-0445                    Tel. (469) 791-0445

                        ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

                       ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

December 30, 2014
                      IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant:
   Laredo National Bank D/B/A BBVA Compass Bank

   Trial and Appellate Counsel for Appellant:

   Selim H. Taherzadeh, Trial and Appellate Counsel
   Taherzadeh, PLLC
   st@taherzlaw.com
   5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1000 East
   Addison, TX 75001
   Tel. (469) 791-0445
   Fax (469) 828-2772

   Michelle Peritore, Appellate Counsel
   Taherzadeh, PLLC
   mp@taherzlaw.com
   5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1000 East
   Addison, TX 75001
   Tel. (469) 791-0445
   Fax (469) 828-2772

Appellee:
   Myrna Elizabeth De Luna Morales

   Trial and Appellate Counsel for Appellee:

   Law Office of Noe Robles
   23331 Tamm Lane
   Harlingen, Texas 78552
   Tel. (956) 440-8200
   Fax (956) 440-8205
   nrobelslawoffice@aol.com

                                          i
                   STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

      Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 39.1, Appellant requests oral

argument and submits that it would materially aid this Court’s decision.

                               RECORD REFERENCES

      The references to the record used in this Brief are:

      CR ___: Refers to the Clerk’s Record and page number(s).

      RR ___: Refers to the Reporter’s Record and page number(s).

                                            ii
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .......................................................................... i
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................................. ii
RECORD REFERENCES ................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........................................................................................x
ISSUE PRESENTED...................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ..........................................................................................2
      A.      The Parties' Agreement ..............................................................................2
      B.      Appellee's Default and the Foreclosure Sale ..............................................3
      C.      The Course of Litigation ............................................................................5
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................................................................6
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................8
  I.   District Court Should Not Have Issued an Injunction to Stop the Forcible
       Detainer Action from Proceeding in the Justice Court…………………9
       A. Appellant has the Right to Possession of the Premises………………….9
       B. Appellant's Action in Justice Court Should Not Have Been Interrupted
            by the District Court……………………………………………………10
   II.      Appellee Can Not Establish the Three Elements Required to Issue a
            Temporary Injunction...............................................................................12
       A. Appellee has no Cause of Action against Appellant or Probable Right to
            Recovery on Trial on the Merits…….…………………...…………… 13
        i. Appellant's Deception……………………………….…………………13
        ii. Appellant's Breach of Contract………………………………………...17
        iii. Breach of Fiduciary Duty or Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing…..19
        iv. Negligence……………………………………………………………..21
        v. Trespass to Try Title……………………......…………………………23
        vi. Wrongful Foreclosure…………………………………………………24
        vii. Breach of Trustee's Duties…………………………………………….26

                                                               iii
         B. Appellee Cannot Show a Probable, Imminent, and Irreparable Injury in
            the Interim………………………………………….…………………26
         C. Temporary Injunction Should Be Declared Void…………………….29
         D. The Bond Should Be Increased………………………………………31
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..........................................................................................34
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................................34

APPENDIX
         Tab A:            Order Granting Temporary Injunction - 107th District Court,
                           Cameron County Texas, Cause No. 2014-DCL-02962

         Tab B:            Compass Bank’s Motion To Dissolve Temporary Injunction Order
                           or in the Alternative to Modify the Order - 107th District Court,
                           Cameron County Texas, Cause No. 2014-DCL-02962

         Tab C:            Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant’s Motion(s) to Dismiss and
                           Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction Order and
                           Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reset Hearing on Motions -
                           107th District Court, Cameron County Texas, Cause No. 2014-
                           DCL-02962

         Tab D:            Compass Bank’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
                           Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction
                           Order - 107th District Court, Cameron County Texas, Cause No.
                           2014-DCL-02962

         Tab E:            Order Denying Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction - 107th
                           District Court, Cameron County Texas, Cause No. 2014-DCL-
                           02962

         Tab F:            Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 683

                                                            iv
                                        TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex. 1996). ...........................15
Bank of America v. Babu, 340 S.W.3d 917, 928 (Tex. App. 2011) ........................21
Baucum v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York,
  370 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex. 1963)........................................................................28
Biodynamics, Inc. v. Guest, 817 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Tex. App.-- Houston
  [14th Dist.] 1991, writ dism'd by agr.) .................................................................32
Bittinger v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 744 F. Supp. 2d 619, 626 (S.D. Tex. 2010) ....19
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) ..................................9
Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex. 1981) .................15
Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 236-37
   (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (en banc) ...................................9
Case Corp. v. Hi-Class Business Systems of America, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 760,
  769–70 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)………………………………...18
Coleman v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:11-CV-430-G-BD,
  2011 WL 2516169, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2011), rec. adopted,
  2011 WL 2516668 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 2011). ...................................................20
Dewayne Rogers Logging, Inc. v. Propac Industries, Ltd.,
  299 S.W.3d 374, 382–83 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, pet. denied). .......................22
D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro Independent School District,
  973 S.W.2d 662, 663 (Tex. 1998)........................................................................22
Durkay v. Madco Oil Co., 862 S.W.2d 14, 21
 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied)………………………………...27
English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521, 522 (Tex. 1983)……………………………20
Fillion v. David Silvers Co., 709 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Tex. App.—Houston
  [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). ............................................................... 27,28
FDIC v. Coleman, 795 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tex. 1990)…………………………….20
Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. 2007). .....................23
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d
41, 45–47 (Tex. 1998) ..........................................................................................22
Galvan v. Centex Home Equity Co., L.L.C., No. 04–06–00820–CV, 2008 WL 441773,
  at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.)….27

                                                          v
Gatling v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. H-11-2879, 2012 WL 3756581,
   at *13 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2012)………………………………………………16
Great American Insurance Co. v. North Austin Municipal
   Utility District No. 1, 908 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1995) ....................................19
Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). ........22
Grella v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 15, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston 1982)………………...28
GTE Mobilnet of South Texas Ltd. Partnership v. Cellular Max, Inc.,
   123 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2003, review dismissed) ....................32
Hall v. Resolution Trust Corp., 958 F.2d 75, 79 (5th Cir. 1992) ............................21
HeilCo. v. Polar Corp., 191 S.W.3d 805, 815–18 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006,
   pet. denied)..……………………………………………………………………22
 Intercontinental Terminals Co., LLC v. Vopak N. Am., Inc.,
   354 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) ................30
Jaimes v. Fannie Mae, 03-13-00290-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14615,
   (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2013). ......................................................................................9
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. 1986) .......................22
Kassim v. Carlisle Interests, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 537, 541
   (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010)....................................................................................12
King v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 3-11CV-0945-M-BD, 2012 WL 1205163,
   at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2012) ..........................................................................18
Kiper v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 884 F. Supp. 2d 561, 573 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
   ..............................................................................................................................23
Lambert v. First National Bank of Bowie, 993 S.W.2d 833, 835
   (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied)……………………………………27
La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 564
   (Tex. 1984)...………………………………………………………………........15
Liberty Lending Servs. v. Musselwhite, 1999 WL 649131 (Tex. App.--[14th} Houston)
   ..............................................................................................................................31
Lovell v. Western National Life Insurance Co., 754 S.W.2d 298, 302–03 (Tex.App.—
Amarillo 1988, writ denied)…………………………………………20
Marketic v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 436 F. Supp. 2d 842, 855 (N.D. Tex. 2006) .....15
Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex. 2004). .........................................23
Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3-10-CV-O-BD, 2011 WL 2429153,
    at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2011)..........................................................................25
                                                                 vi
McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984). .................................7,10
Milton v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 508 F. App’x 326, 329–30
  (5th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................................................20
Moreno v. Baker Tools, Inc., 808 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.App—Houston
  [1st dist.] 1991, no writ). ......................................................................................30
Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 418 (5th Cir. 2009). ...........................17
Nelson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 3:10-CV-1771-O,
  2012 WL 6928579, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2012) ............................................16
Nichamoff v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. H-12-1039, 2012 WL 4388344,
  at *3-4 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2012)……………………………………………..16
Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10, 10 (Tex.Civ.App. -- Texarkana 1959,
  writ ref'd n.r.e.).....................................................................................................30
Pachter v. Woodman, 534 S.W.2d 940, 945–46 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1976), rev’d
  on other grounds, 547 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. 1977) ...................................................28
Peoples v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 4:10-CV-489-A, 2011 WL 1107211,
  at *4 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011)…………………………………......25
Phillips v. Latham, 523 S.W.2d 19, 24–25 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1975, writ ref’d
  n.r.e.); ...................................................................................................................28
Price v. Reeves, 91 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1936, writ dism’d).
  ..............................................................................................................................28
Quest Comm. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000). .................30
Reyna v. State National Bank, 911 S.W.2d 851, 855–56
  (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, writ denied).................................................. 24,26
Riverside Nat’l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex. 1980) ..........................15
Sadler v. Duvall, 815 S.W.2d 285, 293, n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991,
  pet. denied) ...........................................................................................................24
Saenz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 7:13-CV-156, 2013 WL 3280214,
  at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 27, 2013). ........................................................ …………..27
Sandhar v. Grewal, No. H-08-2348, 2009 WL 175073, at *4
  (S.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2009)……………………………………………………….18
Sauceda v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135, 139 (Tex. App.—Corpus
  Christi 2008, no pet.). ...........................................................................................25
Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tex. 1936). ............................................ 2,7,12
Sgroe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 941 F. Supp. 2d 731, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2013). .....24
                                                               vii
Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App. -- Fort Worth 1980,
   no writ).. ..............................................................................................................30
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 494–95
  (Tex. 1991) ...........................................................................................................22
Sport Supply Grp., Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 335 F.3d 453, 466
  (5th Cir. 2003)…. .................................................................................................21
Thomas v. EMC Mortgage Corp., No. 4:10-CV-861-A, 2011 WL 5880988,
  at *6 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2011) ..........................................................................25
TMC Med., Ltd. v. Lasaters French Quarter P’ship, 880 S.W.2d 789, 791
  (Tex. App.--Tyler 1993). ..................................................................................1,11
Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tex. 1988)………..………………..……..27
UMLIC VP LLC v. T&M Sales & Environmental Systems, Inc.,
 176 S.W.3d 595, 612 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. denied) ................20
University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Tex.Civ.App --
  San Antonio 1981, no writ) ..................................................................................30
Visconti v. Bank of America, No. 4:10-CV-532, 2012 WL 3779083,
  at *4-5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2012)...……………………………………………16
Vogel v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 966S.W.2d 748, 753
 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)……………………………………….20
Watson v. Citimortgage, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 2d 726, 731 (E.D. Tex. 2011)………20
White v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 3:09-CV-2484-G, 2010 WL 4352711, at
  *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2010)...………………………………….....27
Williams v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 176, 192
  (S.D. Tex. 2007)...................................................................................................19
Williams v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, No. 2:11-CV-157-J,
  2012 WL 443986, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2012)……………………………22
Woods v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:11-CV-1116-B, 2012 WL 1344343,
   at *7 (N.D. Tex. April 17, 2012)………………………………………………17
1001 McKinney Ltd. V. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital,
  192 S.W.3d 20, 36 (Tex App. 2005)….……………………………………......19

                                                             viii
Statutes
TEX. R. CIV. P. 683………………………………………………………………29
TEX. R. CIV. P. 684………………………………………………………………31

                       ix
                        STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the case       Appeal of Order Denying Appellant Compass
                         Bank’s Motion to Dissolve or a Temporary
                         Injunction.

Course of proceedings    Appellant Compass Bank sought to exercise its
                         rights to possession as owner of a property
                         following a valid foreclosure sale on April 1, 2014.
                         On May 12, 2014, Appellee filed its Original
                         Petition. CR 7. On June 4, 2014, Appellant
                         Compass Bank filed its Motion to Dismiss and
                         Motion for Sanctions. CR 59. On June 16, 2014,
                         Appellant filed a Motion to Deny the Temporary
                         Injunction. CR 241. On June 26, 2014, the Court
                         entered an Order granting the Appellee’s Request
                         for a Temporary Injunction. CR 372. On August 1,
                         2014, the Appellant filed a Motion for Summary
                         Judgment. CR 522. On September 23, 2014, the
                         Appellant filed a Motion to Dissolve Temporary
                         Injunction Order or in the Alternative to Modify the
                         Order. CR 667. On October 31, 2014, the Court
                         entered an Order Denying the Appellant’s Motion
                         to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment and
                         Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Injunction. CR
                         684-86.

Disposition below        Order Denying Appellant’s Motion to Dissolve
                         Temporary Injunction Order or In the Alternative to
                         Modify the Ordered Entered. Order Denying
                         Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying
                         Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
                         Entered. CR 684-86.

                                    x
                          ISSUE PRESENTED

Did the Trial Court Err in Denying Appellant’s Motion to Dissolve Temporary
Injunction when:

1.) Appellant has a Right to Immediate Possession of the Premises;

2.) Appellee has No Valid Cause of Action against Appellant or Probable Right
    to Recovery on Trial on the Merits;

3.) Appellee Cannot Show a Probable, Imminent, and Irreparable Injury in the
    Interim; and

4.) The Temporary Injunction Order fails to comply with the Texas Rules of
   Civil Procedure.

                                   xi
                                 INTRODUCTION

      The Trial Court erred in denying the Appellant’s Motion to Dissolve

Temporary Injunction because Appellant has the right to immediate possession of

the Premises, the Appellee cannot establish the three elements required for the

issuance of a temporary injunction, and the temporary injunction order, as signed,

does not comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.             When Appellee

defaulted on her loan, Appellant foreclosed on the Property in accordance with the

Note and Deed of Trust. RR 29, CR 276. After the foreclosure sale, Appellee

remained in possession of the Property, and the Appellant had to file a forcible

detainer action in Justice Court in order to obtain possession of the Property. RR

21. As a result, the Appellee filed a petition in District Court in order to enjoining

the parties from proceeding on the forcible detainer action. CR7. On June 26,

2014, the District Court issued a Temporary Injunction enjoining the parties from

proceeding on the forcible detainer action in Justice Court. CR 372.

      The Justice Court has the jurisdiction alone to determine the immediate

possessory rights of the parties. TMC Med., Ltd. v. Lasaters French Quarter

P’ship, 880 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1993). Therefore, title disputes in

District Court can proceed concurrently with forcible detainer actions in Justice

Court. Permitting parties to abate forcible detainer actions simply by filing suit in

                                          1
District Court frustrates the legislative intent of forcible detainer proceedings

designed to be an inexpensive and speedy remedy “for the determination of who is

entitled to possession of the premises.” Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tex.

1936). The Appellant’s action in Justice Court should not have been interrupted by

the Appellee’s action in District Court.

         Even if it would have been appropriate to issue a temporary injunction,

neither the pleadings nor the evidence presented support likelihood of success on

any of the merits of a cause of action that could support rescission of the

foreclosure sale. Since rescission is not available, then it was improper for the

District Court to enjoin the eviction proceedings pending the outcome of the

underlying suit.

         The District Court should not have denied the Appellant’s Motion to

Dissolve the Temporary Injunction, and this Court should reverse the Trial Court’s

order.

                          STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
         A. The Parties’ Agreement

                                           2
      On January 24, 2006, Myrna Elizabeth de Luna Morales (“Appellee”) signed a

30-year loan agreement (the “Note” or “Loan”) in which she agreed to repay

$291,200.00 to Laredo National Bank (“the Appellant”) in monthly installments of

$1,937.37 beginning March of 2006. Appellee obtained the loan so that she could

purchase a home located at 6503 Fountain Way, South Padre Island, TX 78597

(“Premises” or “Property”). CR 264.

      On January 24, 2006, Appellee executed a deed of trust in which she agreed to

repay the amount owed to Appellant in accordance with the note and conveyed the

home to a trustee as security for their repayment. CR 262. Under the deed of trust,

Appellant agreed that it shall give notice to Appellee prior to acceleration following

Appellee’s breach of any covenant or agreement. CR 276. If Appellee failed to cure

her default, Appellant was entitled to require immediate payment in full of all sums

secured without further demand and to invoke the power of sale. CR 276.

      If Appellant invoked the power of sale, Appellee authorized the trustee or, any

subsequently appointed trustee, to sell the home to the highest bidder for cash and

agreed that Appellant was allowed to purchase the home at any such sale. CR 276.

Sale under this provision immediately required Appellee to surrender possession of

the home to the purchaser or become a tenant at sufferance. CR 277.

      B. Appellee’s Default and the Foreclosure Sale
                                          3
      On January 8, 2014, Appellant sent Appellee a notice specifying that (a)

Appellee was in default of her loan by failing to make the required payments for six

consecutive months, (b) Appellee must cure the default by paying $19,919.83, (c)

Appellee must cure the default on or before February 7, 2014, and (d) failure to cure

the default by February 7, 2014, would result in all sums secured by the Deed

becoming immediately due and payable. CR 215; RR 27. Appellee did not cure the

default by February 7, 2014. RR 27. On February 10, 2014, Appellant sent Appellee

a Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Sale notifying Appellee that Appellant was

exercising its power of sale, and that the foreclosure sale would take place on March

4, 2014. CR 224; RR 27-29. Appellee’s former counsel contacted Appellant on

February 26, 2014. Appellee’s former counsel informed Appellant that the Appellee

was working on various ways to obtain the funds to reinstate the Loan or satisfy the

Loan in its entirety. Additionally, Appellee’s former counsel stated that Appellee was

confident she could get the money put together in the next thirty (30) days and/or get

the subject property sold. Relying on that statement, Appellant agreed to postpone

the sale until April 1, 2014. RR 29.

      Appellee’s former counsel informed Appellant on March 20, 2014 that the

alleged new purchaser had got cold feet and the sale was not going to go through.

RR29. Appellee’s former counsel subsequently requested a second postponement of

                                          4
the foreclosure sale because Appellee believed she had another potential purchaser

but that it would not close until after the foreclosure sale. RR 31. Appellant, via its

attorney, informed Appellee’s former counsel that the request for a second

postponement of the foreclosure was denied.

      The foreclosure sale occurred on April 1, 2014 as noticed, and Appellant

purchased the home for $308,000.00. CR 238. The deed of trust authorizing the sale

provides that upon occurrence of a non-judicial foreclosure sale, Appellee is to

surrender the Premises to the Purchaser at such sale or be deemed to be a tenant at

sufferance. CR 277. Appellee is currently in possession of the premises. RR 21.

Appellant brought a forcible detainer action in a Justice Court. Appellee subsequently

requested and obtained a temporary injunction in District Court and impeded the

Appellant from continuing the forcible detainer action in the Justice Court. CR 7.

      C. The Course of Litigation

      The Appellee’s Original Petition was filed on May 12, 2014. CR 7.

Appellant Compass Bank filed its Original Answer on May 23, 2014. CR 51. A

temporary injunction hearing was held on May 27, 2014. As a result of a Rule 11

Agreement, the hearing was reset for June 5, 2014. CR 54.             The temporary

injunction hearing was held on June 5, 2014, and the temporary restraining order

was extended to June 18, 2014. Appellant Compass Bank filed a Motion to
                                          5
Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions on June 4, 2014. CR 59. On June 11, 2014, the

Appellee filed its First Amended Petition. CR 194. On June 16, 2014, Appellant

filed a Motion to Deny Temporary Injunction. CR 241.           On June 26, 2014,

Appellant filed a Second Motion to Deny Temporary Injunction. CR 376. The

Trial Court entered an order granting a Temporary Injunction on June 26, 2014.

CR 372. On July 28, 2014, Appellant filed its Second Motion to Dismiss. CR 508.

On August 1, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. CR 522. On

September 9, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction

Order or in the Alternative to Modify the Order. On October 31, 2014, the Trial

Court entered an Order denying the Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Injunction.

CR 684. On October 31, 2014, the Court also entered an Order denying

Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss and an Order Denying Appellant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. CR 684-86. As a result, this Appeal ensued.

                      SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

      The District Court should not have issued a temporary injunction to stop the

forcible detainer action from proceeding in the Justice Court. Notwithstanding the

fact that the Appellee cannot establish the three elements required for the issuance

of a temporary injunction, Appellant’s action in Justice Court should not have been

interrupted by the Appellee’s claim in District Court. Forcible entry and detainer

                                         6
proceedings are intended to be “summary, speedy, and inexpensive.” See

McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984). Permitting parties to

abate forcible detainer actions simply by filing suit in District Court frustrates the

legislative intent of forcible detainer proceedings designed to be an inexpensive

and speedy remedy “for the determination of who is entitled to possession of the

premises.” Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tex. 1936).

      Because Appellant has the right to immediate possession of the premises, the

adequate remedy at law for Appellee is defending oneself in Justice Court. See

McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984). When the Appellee

defaulted under the terms of the deed of trust, the Appellant purchased the property

as evidenced by the substitute trustee’s deed, which resulted in the Appellant’s

superior right to immediate possession of the premises. CR 238. It is undisputed

that the deed of trust provides that Appellee becomes a tenant at sufferance upon

the foreclosure sale of the property. CR 37.

      Even if it was appropriate for the District Court to interrupt Appellant’s

Action in Justice Court, the Plaintiff cannot establish the three elements required

for the issuance of a temporary injunction. Not only does the Appellee have no

cause of action against the Appellant with a probable right to recovery on a trial on

                                          7
the merits, but the Appellee cannot show a probable, imminent, and irreparable

injury.

      Finally, the Temporary Injunction Order should be declared void. Under

Texas law, when a temporary injunction order entered by a court does not

articulate essential requirements, it is subject to being declared void and dissolved.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. The temporary injunction order failed to mention two

mandatory requirements. CR 372. First, the order failed to set the case for trial on

the merits. Second, the order failed to state the harm that would result in the event

the order was not entered. Therefore, the Temporary Injunction Order fails to

comply with the requirements of Rule 683, and should be declared void and be

dissolved.

      The facts and the law show that the Trial Court’s order should be reversed

and the temporary injunction be dissolved and declared void and Appellant be

allowed to proceed with its forcible detainer action pending in the Justice Court.

                                    ARGUMENT

      Texas law is clear that the burden of proof for a temporary injunction is on

the party seeking the injunction. To obtain a temporary injunction, a party must

plead and prove three specific elements (1) a cause of action against the defendant;
                                          8
(2) a probable right to recovery following a trial on the merits; and (3) a probable,

imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84
S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy

that does not issue as a matter of right. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. An injury is

“irreparable” if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages.

See, e.g., Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 236-

37 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (en banc). Moreover, injunctive

relief brought through a District Court to stop an eviction is improper if there is a

forcible detainer action in Justice Court. Jaimes v. Fannie Mae, 03-13-00290-CV,

2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14615, (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2013).

      I.      District Court Should Not Have Issued an Injunction to Stop the
              Forcible Detainer Action from Proceeding in the Justice Court.

      Under Texas law, a District Court cannot enjoin parties from proceeding on

a forcible detainer action pending in Justice Court, and in support Appellant states

as follows:

       A. Appellant has the Right to Possession of the Premises.

       A forcible detainer action occurs following a foreclosure sale when a person

becomes a tenant at sufferance, meaning the person is in possession of real

property and refuses to surrender possession on demand. Id. In the present case, the

                                         9
Appellee became a tenant at sufferance when she refused to leave the premises that

no longer belonged to her. “To prevail in a forcible detainer action, a party must

only show sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to

immediate possession.” Id. Here, the Appellant has a superior right to immediate

possession as evidenced by the trustee’s deed. The substitute trustee’s deed reflects

the Compass Bank purchased the Property after Appellee defaulted under the terms

of the deed of trust. CR 238. The deed of trust established that after acceleration

of the note, foreclosure and sale of the property, any person in possession of the

sold premises would become a “tenant at sufferance” and would be “removed by

writ of possession or other court proceeding.” CR 277.           The notices sent by

Compass Bank informed Appellee that her tenancy was being terminated and that

she was required to vacate the Property. CR 287. This evidence is sufficient to

show that Appellant has the right to immediate possession of the Property.

         B. Appellant’s Action in Justice Court Should Not Have Been
            Interrupted by Appellee’s Claim in District Court.

      The Texas Supreme Court held in McGlothlin v. Kliebert that “[f]or the

district court to enjoin the exercise of the justice court’s exclusive jurisdiction in a

forcible entry and detainer case, there must be a showing that the justice court is

without jurisdiction to proceed in the cause or the defendant has no adequate

remedy at law.” McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex.
                                          10
1984). Therefore, a party could have brought her action in District Court only by

“show[ing] facts that existed which prevented [Plaintiff] from making his defense

at law in the justice court.” Id. The adequate remedy at law is defending oneself in

the Justice Court proceedings. Id. In the present case, the Appellee can bring her

defenses in Justice Court rather than delay the “summary, speedy, and

inexpensive” process of forcible entry and detainer proceedings that the legislature

intended. Id. Another Texas court has specifically stated that a trial court had “no

authority to enjoin eviction proceedings” when a landlord attempted to evict a

tenant and the tenant filed a temporary injunction in District Court. TMC Med.,

Ltd. v. Lasaters French Quarter P’ship, 880 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. App.--Tyler

1993). The court further stated that “[t]he justice court alone has jurisdiction to

determine the possessory rights of the parties.” Id.

      The Appellee has not alleged any facts nor offered any evidence to support

that that the Justice Court does not have jurisdiction. This case pending in the

Justice of the Peace is merely a dispute between a tenant at sufferance and the

rightful owner of the property. Similar to the facts in the present case, the court in

Jaimes found that a Justice Court proceeding for forcible detainer could not be

enjoined by a temporary injunction filed in District Court when the lienholder

foreclosed on the borrower’s property and the borrower refused to surrender

                                          11
possession. Jaimes, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14615.              Additionally, the Texas

Supreme Court held in Scott v. Hewitt that “a forcible detainer action is ‘not

exclusive, but cumulative’ of other remedies that a party may have, thus a party

may pursue both a forcible detainer action in justice court and a suit to quiet title in

district court.” Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tex. 1936). Therefore, the

forcible detainer actions in Justice Court may proceed concurrently with title

disputes in District Court. Permitting parties to abate forcible detainer actions

simply by filing suit in District Court would frustrate the legislative intent of

forcible detainer proceedings occurring in “a summary, speedy, and inexpensive

remedy for the determination of who is entitled to possession of the premises.”

Id. This is true “even if the other action adjudicates matters that could result in a

different determination of possession from that rendered in the forcible detainer

suit.” Kassim v. Carlisle Interests, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2010).

          II. Appellee Cannot Establish the Three Elements Required for the
          Issuance of a Temporary Injunction.

      Despite the fact that the Appellee cannot show that the Justice Court does

not have jurisdiction to proceed with the forcible detainer action, even if she could,

Appellee should not have been entitled to a temporary injunction because she

cannot prove the three elements necessary for the issuance of injunctive relief.
                                          12
          A. Appellee Has No Cause of Action against Appellant or Probable
             Right to Recovery on Trial on the Merits.

        It is undisputed that the Appellee was in default on the loan and that

Appellee received both the notice of default and notice of sale. RR 28. In fact, the

only allegation of wrongdoing on behalf of the Appellee is that Compass Bank

refused to postpone the foreclosure sale for a second time to allow Appellee to

continue to try to sell the property. Appellee admitted that she was not current on

the loan, did not possess the funds to reinstate or payoff the loan, and she did not

attempt to tender the funds to Appellant but was refused. RR 29. Nevertheless,

Appellee’s Amended Petition states her causes of action are a DTPA claim, Breach

of Contract, Breach of Trustee’s Duties, and Negligence. CR 194. Appellee also

makes references throughout the petition to a Breach of Duty of Fairness and Good

Faith. CR 194. Additionally, Appellee’s opening paragraph describes the Petition

as “Plaintiff’s Petition to Set Aside Wrongful Foreclosure, Trespass to Try

Title…” despite making no other references to these causes of action throughout

the pleading. CR 194. As shown below, Appellee either has no cause of action or

no probability of success on the merits for any of them, even the ones improperly

pled.

        i. Appellant’s Deception

                                        13
      The Appellee asserts that the Appellant violated the Texas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act (“DTPA”) when the Appellant allegedly “led plaintiff to believe that

as a borrower plaintiff would have an absolute right to recourse when faced with

default, acceleration of the note and foreclosure.” CR 197.

      Appellee has no likelihood of success on the merits for the reasons stated

below. The Court should also note that Appellant allowed Appellee to attempt to

cure the default when the Appellee alleged that she had a buyer and would be able

to fully pay off the note. RR 29. This contradicts Appellee’s allegation that

Appellant failed to allow her to cure the default. Moreover, Appellee admitted in

the temporary injunction hearing that she did not have the funds to reinstate or

payoff the loan at the time of the foreclosure sale. RR 29; CR 10. Appellee does

not allege nor provided any evidence to suggest that Appellant did anything to

prevent her from reinstating or paying off the loan or how, since she did not have

the funds at the time of the foreclosure sale, she would have been damaged.

      Additionally, Appellee lacks standing to bring a claim under the DTPA. To

prevail on a claim under the DTPA, a Plaintiff must establish: (1) she is a

consumer who sought or acquired, by purchase or lease, goods or services from a

defendant; (2) the defendant can be sued under the DTPA; (3) the defendant

committed an act in violation of the DTPA; and (4) the act was a producing cause
                                         14
of the plaintiff’s damages. See Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649

(Tex. 1996). Appellee’s only factual allegations in support of this claim concern a

failure to postpone the foreclosure sale for a second time, and she alleges no fact

that would tend to show any wrongdoing by Appellant. CR 197. But even if

Appellee could prove conduct that is actionable under the DTPA, which Appellant

denies, Appellee lacks standing as a consumer.

       A person must be a consumer to establish a claim under the DTPA. See

Riverside Nat’l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex. 1980); Cameron v.

Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex. 1981); La Sara Grain Co. v.

First Nat’l Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. 1984). A person is a

consumer under the DTPA only if two requirements are met. First, the person

must seek or acquire goods or services by purchase or lease. Riverside, 603
S.W.2d at 173-74; Cameron, 618 S.W.2d at 539; La Sara, 673 S.W.2d at

564.    Second,   the   goods   or   services    must   form   the   basis   of   the

complaint. Riverside, 603 S.W.2d at 173-74; Cameron, 618 S.W.2d at 539; La

Sara, 673 S.W.2d at 564. In the present action, both requirements fail.

       The Texas Supreme Court holds that loans of money or extensions of credit

are not considered goods or services under the DTPA. Riverside, 603 S.W.2d at

174; La Sara, 673 S.W.2d at 567; see also Marketic v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 436 F.
15
Supp. 2d 842, 855 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (“[A person] who obtains a home equity loan

does not obtain a “good” or a “service” to qualify as a consumer under the

DTPA”).

      Appellee does not allege facts nor offered any evidence demonstrating that

they sought to purchase or lease any goods or services from Appellant. Appellee

does not allege facts nor offered any evidence that would show that they had

dealings with Appellant unrelated to the Loan. Numerous courts in Texas have

held that borrowers similarly situated are not consumers under the DTPA. See

Nelson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 3:10-CV-1771-O, 2012 WL 6928579, at

*6 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2012); Nichamoff v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. H-12-1039,

2012 WL 4388344, at *3-4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2012); Visconti v. Bank of

America, No. 4:10-CV-532, 2012 WL 3779083, at *4-5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2012);

Gatling v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. H-11-2879, 2012 WL 3756581, at *13 (S.D.

Tex. Aug. 28, 2012) (finding that plaintiff was not a consumer because her “claim

is based on acts occurring years after the financing transaction”); Woods v. Bank of

America, N.A., No. 3:11-CV-1116-B, 2012 WL 1344343, at *7 (N.D. Tex. April

17, 2012) (holding “the servicing or administration of the loan is merely incidental

to a plaintiff’s prior objective to purchase a residence, such events do not bestow

consumer status upon the plaintiff for purposes of the DTPA”).

                                        16
      Appellee cannot show a probability of success on her DTPA claim since she

is not a consumer, fails to show that Appellant did any wrongdoing, and cannot

show how she was damaged.          Additionally, a claim under the DTPA cannot

support a temporary injunction since recovery would be limited to damages and

not rescission of the foreclosure sale.

      ii. Appellant’s Breach of Contract

      The elements of a breach of contract claim in Texas are “(1) the existence of

a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the Plaintiff, (3)

breach of the contract by the Defendant; and (4) damages sustained by the Plaintiff

as a result of the breach.” See Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 418 (5th

Cir. 2009). Defaulting on a loan, absent a showing that the lender actively

prevented the Appellee from making payment, precludes the Appellee from

demonstrating her own performance under the loan agreement. See Woods v. Bank

of America, N.A, No. 3:11-CV-1116-B, 2012 WL 1344343 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr.

17, 2012). Here, Appellee cannot show performance on the note or deed of trust

because it is undisputed that she was in default of her payment obligations under

those agreements and that she did not have the funds to reinstate or payoff the loan

at the time of the foreclosure sale. RR 29.

                                          17
      Additionally, a borrower “suing for breach of contract must point to a

specific provision in the contract that was breached by the defendant.” King v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 3-11CV-0945-M-BD, 2012 WL 1205163, at *2 (N.D.

Tex. Mar. 20, 2012); see also Sandhar v. Grewal, No. H-08-2348, 2009 WL
175073, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2009) (stating that a plaintiff “must plead . . . the

provisions of the contract allegedly breached” to survive a motion to dismiss);

Case Corp. v. Hi-Class Business Systems of America, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 760, 769–

70 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (“A breach of contract occurs when a

party fails to perform an act that it has expressly or impliedly promised to

perform.”). Appellee fails to point out where in the Note or Deed of Trust it

requires Appellant to postpone a foreclosure sale for a second time to allow her to

try to sell the property in order to payoff the loan.

      Appellee has no probable right to relief on her breach of contract claim since

she admittedly was in default under the terms of the contract, failed to allege or

provide evidence as to what section of the deed of trust Appellant breached, admits

to receiving all of the required notices prior to foreclosure, and suffered no

damages as she did not have the funds to reinstate or payoff the loan at the time of

the foreclosure sale. Additionally, a breach of contract claim does not support

                                           18
injunctive relief since the remedy would be damages and not rescission of the

foreclosure sale.

      iii. Breach of Fiduciary Duty or Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

      In Texas, the elements of a claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty are “(1) that

the Plaintiff and Defendant had a fiduciary relationship; (2) the Defendant

breached its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff; and (3) the Defendant’s breach resulted

in injury to the Plaintiff.” See Williams v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 504 F.

Supp. 2d 176, 192 (S.D. Tex. 2007). The relationship between a lender and

borrower is not by itself fiduciary in nature. See Bittinger v. Wells Fargo Bank NA,

744 F. Supp. 2d 619, 626 (S.D. Tex. 2010); Williams, 504 F. Supp. 2d at 192

(citing 1001 McKinney Ltd. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital, 192
S.W.3d 20, 36 (Tex App. 2005)). Because Appellee has not alleged or produced

any evidence indicating that their interaction with Appellant gave rise to anything

other than an ordinary lender-borrower relationship, they have not shown that

Appellant owed a fiduciary duty to Appellee.

      Under Texas law, a duty of good faith and fair dealing does not exist in all

contractual contexts. See Great American Insurance Co. v. North Austin Municipal

Utility District No. 1, 908 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1995). Rather, the duty of good

faith and fair dealing arises where a special relationship of trust exists between the
                                         19
parties. See Vogel v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 966 S.W.2d 748, 753 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1998, no pet.). “Ordinarily, there is no such duty in lender/lendee

relationships.” Vogel, 966 S.W.2d at 753 (citing FDIC v. Coleman, 795 S.W.2d
706, 709 (Tex. 1990)). Texas law does not “recognize a common law duty of good

faith and fair dealing in transactions between a mortgagee and mortgagor, absent a

special relationship marked by shared trust or an imbalance in bargaining power.”

Coleman v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:11-CV-430-G-BD, 2011 WL 2516169, at

*1 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2011), rec. adopted, 2011 WL 2516668 (N.D. Tex. June 22,

2011). This is because there is no “special relationship between a mortgagor and

mortgagee.” UMLIC VP LLC v. T&M Sales & Environmental Systems, Inc., 176
S.W.3d 595, 612 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. denied); see also Watson

v. Citimortgage, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 2d 726, 731 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (citing Coleman,

2011 WL 2516169, at *1); English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521, 522 (Tex. 1983);

Lovell v. Western National Life Insurance Co., 754 S.W.2d 298, 302–03

(Tex.App.—Amarillo 1988, writ denied).

      In applying Texas law, the Fifth Circuit has explicitly refused to recognize

any duty of good faith and fair dealing in the lender-borrower relationship. See

Milton v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 508 F. App’x 326, 329–30 (5th Cir. 2013)

(rejecting contention that mortgagee had a “special relationship” with mortgagor

                                       20
where plaintiff had alleged active participation by lender and substantial

interactions, including numerous oral representations by lender that the loan would

not be foreclosed); see also Hall v. Resolution Trust Corp., 958 F.2d 75, 79 (5th

Cir. 1992) (“Three Texas intermediate appellate courts have explicitly refused to

overlay an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing duty in the lender-borrower

relationship. We join them in that respect.”).

       The Appellee does not allege any facts nor offered any evidence to suggest

that there is any sort of special relationship between the Appellee and Appellant to

create a fiduciary duty or duty of good faith and fair dealing. As such, Appellee

has no probability of success on the merits for this cause of action and it does not

support injunctive relief.

      iv. Negligence

      "Under Texas law, the elements of a negligence claim are (1) a legal duty on

the part of the defendant; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) damages proximately

resulting from that breach." Sport Supply Grp., Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 335
F.3d 453, 466 (5th Cir. 2003). "The threshold inquiry with regard to negligence is

whether a legal duty existed." Bank of America v. Babu, 340 S.W.3d 917, 928

(Tex. App. 2011) (citing Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523,

525 (Tex. 1990)).
                                          21
      Texas law follows the Economic Loss Doctrine and this precludes recovery

in tort when the loss complained of is the subject matter of a contract between the

parties. See Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 494–

95 (Tex. 1991); Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. 1986);

Dewayne Rogers Logging, Inc. v. Propac Industries, Ltd., 299 S.W.3d 374, 382–83

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, pet. denied). In other words, tort damages are generally

not recoverable unless the plaintiff suffers an injury that is independent and

separate from the economic losses recoverable under a breach of contract claim.

See Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960
S.W.2d 41, 45–47 (Tex. 1998); HeilCo. v. Polar Corp., 191 S.W.3d 805, 815–18

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (citing D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro

Independent School District, 973 S.W.2d 662, 663 (Tex. 1998)). Texas courts

have held that the Economic Loss Doctrine applies to claims for fraud,

misrepresentation, negligence-based claims (including negligent misrepresentation

claims) and Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act claims that arise

from a contract, such as a note or deed of trust. Williams v. Federal National

Mortgage Ass’n, No. 2:11-CV-157-J, 2012 WL 443986, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13,

2012); Kiper v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 884 F. Supp. 2d 561, 573 (S.D.

Tex. 2012).

                                        22
      As discussed above, Texas law makes it clear that Appellant has no duty to

Appellee. Even if it did, Appellee fails to allege any actions that would have

breached that duty. And once again, even if she did, recovery under a negligence

cause of action would be barred under the Economic Loss Doctrine. As such,

Appellee has no probability of success on the merits and thus this cause of action

does not support injunctive relief.

       v. Trespass to Try Title

      "To prevail in a trespass-to-try-title action, Plaintiff must usually (1) prove a

regular chain of conveyances from the sovereign, (2) establish superior title out of

a common source, (3) prove title by limitations, or (4) prove title by prior

possession coupled with proof that possession was not abandoned." Martin v.

Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex. 2004). A suit to quiet title is an equitable

remedy to clarify ownership by removing clouds on the title. See Ford v. Exxon

Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. 2007). To establish a claim for suit

to quiet title, Plaintiff must show the following: (1) an interest in specific property;

(2) that title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant; and (3) that the

claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. Sadler v. Duvall, 815
S.W.2d 285, 293, n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991, pet. denied). An adverse

claim, to constitute a cloud on the title removable by the court, must be one that is

                                          23
valid on its face but is proved by extrinsic evidence to be invalid or unenforceable.

Id.

      Appellee has failed to allege any facts that she has a superiority of title. It is

undisputed that the Property was purchased at a foreclosure sale. When she

defaulted on the note and the home was subsequently foreclosed, the Appellee lost

her interest in the Property. Moreover, the courts have found that the purchaser of

the foreclosure sale to be a bona fide purchaser of the Property. See Sgroe v. Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., 941 F. Supp. 2d 731, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2013). Thus, Appellee has

no likelihood for success for an action to try title.

      vi. Wrongful Foreclosure

      The basic legal remedies available to the mortgagor for a mortgagee’s

wrongful foreclosure are (1) damages in the amount of the mortgagor’s lost equity

in the property or (2) setting aside the foreclosure sale. See Reyna v. State National

Bank, 911 S.W.2d 851, 855–56 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, writ denied). The

elements of a claim for wrongful foreclosure are (1) a defect in the foreclosure sale

proceedings, (2) a grossly inadequate selling price, and (3) a causal connection

between the defect and the grossly inadequate selling price. Sauceda v. GMAC

Mortgage Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135, 139 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no

pet.). Moreover, a wrongful foreclosure claim is only available when the
                                           24
irregularity in the foreclosure sale causes the inadequate price for the property. See

Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3-10-CV-O-BD, 2011 WL 2429153, at

*1 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2011).

      Under Texas law, a claim for wrongful foreclosure is premised upon the

mortgagor’s loss of possession of the property. Thomas v. EMC Mortgage Corp.,

No. 4:10-CV-861-A, 2011 WL 5880988, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2011) (holding

that under Texas law, loss of possession is required to state a claim for wrongful

foreclosure); Peoples v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 4:10-CV-489-A,

2011 WL 1107211, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011).

      Appellee has not alleged facts or offered evidence supporting a defect in the

foreclosure sale proceedings, a grossly inadequate selling price, or any connection

between the two. In fact, the Appellee’s own testimony shows that she received all

the contractually and statutorily required notices required for a foreclosure sale.

RR 29. Additionally, Appellee was attempting to sell the property in question for

less than the price sold at the foreclosure sale and thus cannot claim that it sold for

an inadequate sales price. As such, Appellee cannot show a likelihood for success

on the merits for a Wrongful Foreclosure cause of action.

     vii. Breach of Trustee’s Duties

                                          25
      Appellee    alleged a breach of trustee’s          duties in     its Amended

Pleadings. However, it is undisputed that Connie Medley was the Trustee that

handled the foreclosure sale and thus Appellant cannot be liable for a breach of

trustee’s duties when it was not in fact the trustee of the foreclosure sale. CR 238.

      B.     Appellee Cannot Show a Probable, Imminent, and Irreparable
             Injury in the Interim.

      Except for Wrongful Foreclosure or Trespass to Title, recovery for

Appellee’s causes of action is limited to damages, and rescission is not

available. Thus, even if Appellee is ultimately successful on her causes of action,

she would not be entitled to rescission of the foreclosure and to remain in the

property. Thus, she cannot show irreparable injury. The basic legal remedies

available to the mortgagor for a mortgagee’s wrongful foreclosure are (1) damages

in the amount of the mortgagor’s lost equity in the property or (2) setting aside the

foreclosure sale. See Reyna v. State National Bank, 911 S.W.2d 851, 855–56 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 1995, writ denied). These are alternative remedies, as a

fundamental principal of Texas law is that “[a] party who has lost property through

a wrongful foreclosure is entitled to either the property or its value, but not both.”

Durkay v. Madco Oil Co., 862 S.W.2d 14, 21 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993,

writ denied); see also Saenz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 7:13-CV-156,

2013 WL 3280214, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 27, 2013).
                                         26
      Since rescission is an equitable remedy, the mortgagor seeking rescission

must do equity itself: “In order to set aside the foreclosure sale, however, the

mortgagor must tender the amount owed on the mortgage. Setting aside a trustee

sale is an equitable remedy which requires the mortgagor to make a valid tender of

the amount due to receive equity.” Galvan v. Centex Home Equity Co., L.L.C., No.

04–06–00820–CV, 2008 WL 441773, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 20,

2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Lambert v. First National Bank of Bowie, 993
S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied); Fillion v. David

Silvers Co., 709 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ

ref’d n.r.e.)). Consequently, a mortgagor must come to the court with clean hands

to seek the equitable remedy of setting aside the foreclosure sale. See Truly v.

Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tex. 1988). Thus, Appellee must do equity and

tender the amount due and owing under the promissory note. White v. BAC Home

Loans Servicing, LP, No. 3:09-CV-2484-G, 2010 WL 4352711, at *5 (N.D. Tex.

Nov. 2, 2010) (“to the extent [plaintiff] seeks equitable relief to avoid foreclosure,

he cannot state a claim for such relief because he has not tendered the amount due

on the loan”); Fillion, 709 S.W.2d at 246 (“a necessary prerequisite to

the…recovery of title…is tender of whatever amount is owed on the note”); Grella

v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 15, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston 1982, no writ) (“In a suit

seeking equitable relief to avoid foreclosure, where the appellants allege they can
                                         27
pay the full amount of the note, we are of the opinion that the appellants must

affirmatively demonstrate their ability to pay the full amount due on the note if

they are to obtain equity”).

      In Fillion, the court held not only that the defaulting mortgagor was required

to tender the secured debt but also that the tender was required to be “an

unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another, in current coin of the

realm, a sum on a specified debt or obligation.” Fillion, 709 S.W.2d at 246

(quoting Baucum v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863,

866 (Tex. 1963)); See also Pachter v. Woodman, 534 S.W.2d 940, 945–46 (Tex.

Civ. App.—Tyler 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 547 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. 1977);

Phillips v. Latham, 523 S.W.2d 19, 24–25 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1975, writ

ref’d n.r.e.); Price v. Reeves, 91 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth

1936, writ dism’d).

      It is undisputed that Appellee did not unconditionally offer the amounts

owed under the Note. It is also undisputed that the Appellee did not have the funds

at the time of the foreclosure sale to reinstate or payoff the loan.      As such,

rescission is not an available remedy for the Appellee. Since rescission is not an

available remedy, it was improper for the Court to issue a temporary injunction

                                        28
order since proceeding with the eviction action in the justice court would not

irreparable injure her ability to recover damages, her only available remedy.

      C. Temporary Injunction Order Should be Declared Void.

      Under Texas law, the temporary injunction order entered by the Trial Court

did not articulate essential requirements and therefore is voidable. TRCP 683

clearly states that “Every order granting an injunction…1.) shall set forth the

reasons for its issuance; 2.) shall be specific in terms; 3.) shall describe in

reasonable detail and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act

or acts sought to be restrained; and 4.) is binding only upon the parties to the

action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and upon those

person in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the

order by personal service or otherwise.” TRCP 683 further states, “Every order

granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on

the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought. The appeal of a temporary

injunction shall constitute no cause for delay of the trial.”

      An injunction order that does not comply with Rule 683 is subject to being

declared void and dissolved. Quest Comm. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334,

337 (Tex.2000). Two mandatory requirements for a Temporary Injunction Order

are: (1) the order must set the case for trial for a specific date, and (2) the order
                                           29
must specifically state what injury will be suffered if the order is not granted. Id.

See also, Intercontinental Terminals Co., LLC v. Vopak N. Am., Inc., 354 S.W.3d
887, 892 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) citing Moreno v. Baker

Tools, Inc., 808 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.App—Houston [1st dist.] 1991, no writ).

      When a temporary injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of

Rule 683, the injunction order is subject to being declared void and dissolved. E.g.,

Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10, 10 (Tex.Civ.App. -- Texarkana 1959, writ

ref'd n.r.e.); University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 357-58

(Tex.Civ.App -- San Antonio 1981, no writ); Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866,

868 (Tex.Civ.App. -- Fort Worth 1980, no writ).)

      This specific temporary injunction order failed on both counts. First, the

order did not set the case for trial on the merits. Thus, it leaves the Temporary

Injunction to potentially last forever without a resolution. Second, the order failed

to state the harm that would result in the event the order was not entered. The only

harm that there could be would be wrongful foreclosure. But as stated again, based

on the elements of wrongful foreclosure, the Appellee has not alleged facts

supporting a defect in the foreclosure sale proceedings, a grossly inadequate selling

price, or any connection between the two; nor has Appellee unconditionally

tendered the amounts owed under the note.
                                         30
      For these reasons, the temporary injunction order does not comply with the

requirements of Rule 683 and it should be declared void and be dissolved.

      D.    The Bond Should be Increased

      Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 684 addresses the issue of the bond

requirement prior to issuing the temporary injunction. TRCP 684 states that an

order granting any temporary injunction, the court shall fix the amount of security

to be given by the applicant. See Liberty Lending Servs. V. Musselwhite, 1999 WL
649131, No. 14-98-01372. The amount of the bond must have some relation to the

potential damages to the respondent if the injunction is wrongfully obtained. The

purpose of the bond is to secure payment to the party against whom injunction is

granted in the amount of damages that party would suffer if the injunction is

subsequently dissolved. Id.

      “A trial court has considerable discretion in setting the amount of bond for a

temporary injunction.” GTE Mobilnet of South Texas Ltd. Partnership v. Cellular

Max, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2003, review dismissed) citing

Biodynamics, Inc. v. Guest, 817 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Tex. App.-- Houston [14th

Dist.] 1991, writ dism'd by agr.) However, in Mobilnet, the appellate court found

                                        31
that a bond of $1,000 was clearly insufficient when the potential damages suffered

would greatly exceed that $1,000. Id.

      Per the note and deed of Trust, Ms. Morales was supposed to make a

monthly payment of $2,849.69. Because of this lawsuit, Appellant is unable to

dispose of the Property or lease it. Thus, Appellant has missed out on monthly

rents since the foreclosure sale on April 1, 2014 of approximately $22,797.52. If

this court does not find that the temporary injunction is dissolved for the reasons

stated above, then the bond should be raised since the Appellant has already

suffered damages well in excess of $1,000.

                              PRAYER FOR RELIEF
      Appellant Compass Bank respectfully asks this Court to reverse the trial

court’s order denying the request to dissolve or modify the temporary injunction.

Appellant pleads further for all other relief to which it is justly entitled under law

or equity.

                                         32
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Selim Taherzadeh

TAHERZADEH, PLLC

Selim H. Taherzadeh
st@taherzlaw.com
Texas Bar No. 24046944
5080 Spectrum Drive
Suite 1000 East
Addison, Texas 75001
Tel. (469) 791-0445
Fax. (469) 828-2772

Michelle Peritore
mp@taherzlaw.com
Texas Bar No. 24088212
5080 Spectrum Drive
Suite 1000 East
Addison, Texas 75001
Tel. (469) 791-0445
Fax. (469) 828-2772

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
COMPASS BANK

 33
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
      I hereby certify that on December 30, 2014 a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing Amended Brief of Appellant was properly forwarded to all
counsel of record for Appellee in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, as follows:
                            Law Office of Noe Robles
                                 23331 Tamm Lane
                               Harlingen, Texas 78552
                                  (T) 956-440-8200
                                  (F) 956-440-8205
                             nrobelslawoffice@aol.com

                                        /s/ Selim Taherzadeh
                                        Selim Taherzadeh

                        CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
       Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, I hereby certify that this brief contains
9893 words. This is a computer-generated document created in Microsoft Word
2013, using 14-point typeface for all text, except for footnotes which are in 12-
point typeface. In making this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word
count provided by the software used to prepare the document.

                                        /s/ Selim Taherzadeh
                                        Selim Taherzadeh

                                       34
   No. 13-14-00644-CV

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
             AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
  _________________________________________________
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                        Appellant,
                           v.
      MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                        Appellee.

                 APPENDIX, TAB A
372
   No. 13-14-00644-CV

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
             AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
  _________________________________________________
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                        Appellant,
                           v.
      MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                        Appellee.

                 APPENDIX, TAB B
   No. 13-14-00644-CV

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
             AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
  _________________________________________________
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                        Appellant,
                           v.
      MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                        Appellee.

                 APPENDIX, TAB C
FILED
2014-DCL-02962
9/23/2014 2:00:29 PM
Aurora De La Garza
Cameron County District Clerk
By Carolina Ostos Deputy Clerk
2590594

                667
668
669
   No. 13-14-00644-CV

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
             AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
  _________________________________________________
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                        Appellant,
                           v.
      MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                        Appellee.

                 APPENDIX, TAB D
                                                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                                                         2014-DCL-02962
                                                                                                                         10/10/2014 3:32:28 PM
                                                                                                                         Aurora De La Garza
                                                                                                                         Cameron County District Clerk
                                                                                                                         By Carolina Ostos Deputy Clerk
                                               CAUSE NUMBER 2014-DCL-02962                                               2797539

MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA                                                       §                             IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MORALES                                                                       §
                                                                              §
Plaintiff                                                                     §
                                                                              §
v.                                                                            §                           107TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                                                                              §
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK, D/B/A                                                   §
BBVA COMPASS BANK                                                             §
                                                                              §
Defendant                                                                     §                       CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      COMPASS BANK’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
     MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
                                 ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Compass Bank (“Defendant” or “Compass Bank”), an Alabama Banking Corporation, authorized to

do business as BBVA Compass as successor by merger to the Laredo National Bank files this Reply

to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve Temporary

Injunction and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

      1. Plaintiff Myrna Elizabeth De Luna Morales requests the Court to deny Defendant’s

           Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injuction on two grounds. First,

           Plaintiff claims that the Court should deny the Motions because the Defendant based its

           Motions on an affirmative defense but failed to file an affirmative defense. Secondly,

           Plaintiff claims that the Court should deny Defendant’s Motions because Defendant

           failed to file Special Exceptions.

      2. Plaintiff fails to state what affirmative defense Defendant based its Motions on. In fact,

REPLY 205-00187                                                                                                                                    Page 1

                                                                                                                                                670
       Defendant neither filed an affirmative defense nor relied on an affirmative defense in its

       Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Dissolve. Defendant’s is entitled to judgment as a matter

       of law based of the pleadings and evidence of record, and not based off of an affirmative

       defense.

   3. Plaintiff seems to misunderstand Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91(a). Said rule allows

       the Court to dismiss a cause of action that has no basis in law or fact. TRCP 91(a)

       provides an alternative remedy to Special Exceptions for pleadings that have no basis in

       law or fact. The fact that Defendant did not file Special Exceptions has no bearing on

       whether the court should grant its Motion to Dismiss.

   4. Plaintiff fails to even respond to the individual reasons the Motion to Dismiss should be

       granted as a matter of law for each cause of action.

   5. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to respond to the arguments contained in the Motion to

       Dissolve Temporary Injunction Order or in the Alternative to Modify Order.           It is

       undisputed that the Temporary Injunction Order does not comply with Texas Rules of

       Civil Procedure 683.

                                            Conclusion

   Even if the Court considers all pleadings in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the

   causes of action have no basis in law or fact. Plaintiff suggests by the Court granting the

   Temporary Injunction, that the Defendant is thus barred from bringing its Motion to Dismiss.

   However, each cause of action must stand on its own and even if the Court finds that grounds

   exist for a Temporary Injunction Order, it does not mean that other causes of action that have

   no basis in law or fact can survive a Motion to Dismiss. Further, the Plaintiffs failed to

   respond to the Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction. Additional arguments and case law

REPLY 205-00187                                                                            Page 2

                                                                                          671
   was provided for the court to consider and thus it once again cannot rely on the previous

   hearing on the temporary injunction as a defense to the Motion to Dissolve, especially in

   light of the fact that the Order, as prepared by counsel for Plaintiff, fails to comply with

   TRCP 683.

                                              Respectfully Submitted,

                                             s/ Selim H. Taherzadeh________
                                             Selim H. Taherzadeh
                                             Texas Bar Number: 24046944
                                             Taherzadeh, Pllc
                                             5080 Spectrum Dr.
                                             Suite 1000 East
                                             Addison, Texas 75001
                                             Telephone: (469) 791-0445
                                             Facsimile: (469) 828-2772
                                             Email: st@taherzlaw.com
                                             ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        A copy of the foregoing document is being served on the below by certified mail, return
receipt requested, first class mail, and electronic mail in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure on the 10th day of October, 2014:

Noe Robles
23331 Tamm Lane
Harlingen, TX 78552
nrobleslawoffice@aol.com

                                                     s/ Selim H. Taherzadeh________
                                                     Selim H. Taherzadeh

REPLY 205-00187                                                                               Page 3

                                                                                            672
   No. 13-14-00644-CV

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
             AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
  _________________________________________________
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                        Appellant,
                           v.
      MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                        Appellee.

                 APPENDIX, TAB E
684
   No. 13-14-00644-CV

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
             AT CORPUS CHRISTI & EDINBURG
  _________________________________________________
LAREDO NATIONAL BANK D/B/A BBVA COMPASS BANK
                        Appellant,
                           v.
      MYRNA ELIZABETH DE LUNA MORALES,
                        Appellee.

                 APPENDIX, TAB F
                                        Tex. R. Civ. P. 683
                           This document is current through July 28, 2014

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART VI.
RULES RELATING TO ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS > SECTION 5. Injunctions

Rule 683 Form and Scope of Injunction or Restraining Order

Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its
issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail and not by reference to the
complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained; and is binding only upon the
parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons
in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service
or otherwise.
Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the
merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought. The appeal of a temporary injunction shall constitute
no cause for delay of the trial.

Annotations

Notes

SOURCE: Federal Rule 65(d), unchanged.
 Change by amendment effective April 1, 1984: The last paragraph is added.

PUBLICATION REFERENCES. --See Texas Litigation Guide, Ch. 50, Injunction.
 See also Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§ 65.001--65.045.

Case Notes

 Antitrust & Trade Law: Trade Practices & Unfair Competition: General Overview
Banking Law: Consumer Protection: Unfair & Deceptive Credit Practices
 Business & Corporate Law: Corporations: Shareholders: Actions Against Corporations: General
Overview
 Business & Corporate Law: Distributorships & Franchises: Causes of Action: Covenants Not to
Compete
Civil Procedure: Justiciability: Mootness: General Overview
 Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction Over Actions: General
Overview
Civil Procedure: Pleading & Practice: Pleadings: Proceedings in Forma Pauperis: Prisoners: Petitions
Civil Procedure: Parties: Prisoners: Dismissals of Petitions
Civil Procedure: Alternative Dispute Resolution: Arbitrations: General Overview
Civil Procedure: Pretrial Matters: Continuances
Civil Procedure: Trials: Bench Trials
Civil Procedure: Trials: Jury Trials: Actions in Equity
Civil Procedure: Judgments: Entry of Judgments: General Overview
Civil Procedure: Judgments: Entry of Judgments: Enforcement & Execution: General Overview