Court Opinion

ID: 9681417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:49:56.617774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.854703
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
Since the Supreme Court refused a writ of error in Hart v. McClusky, 118 S.W.2d 1077, Amarillo Civil Appeals, this Court properly follows the declarations of law found in the Court’s opinion and as set forth in the opinion of Associate Justice Richards.
I do not doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached in McClusky. There the contention was made that only the holder of an assigned portion of the debt, who was seeking foreclosure, could appoint a substitute trustee upon failure or refusal of the original trustee to act, and that the appointment of a substitute trustee by the Federal Land Bank, holder of the ■remaining indebtedness secured by a superior lien, was invalid and that the sale made by him was void. This contention was disallowed, and the authority of the substitute trustee sustained. In the present suit the authority of the substitute trustee appointed by an assignee of a portion of the debt is denied, even though the trustee appointed by the assignor has refused to act. This is a major departure from the holding in McClusky and, I believe, should be closely scrutinized by the Supreme Court. The effect of our de-*485cisión, based on the language of McClusky, is to deny to an assignee of a portion of the debt the right of foreclosure of his lien under the power of sale in the deed of trust.
Reference is made to portions of the deed of trust in suit described or set out in the opinion of Associate Justice Richards. In addition, I quote the following therefrom:
“If the said trustee shall die, or shall remove from the State of Texas, or shall be disqualified from acting in the execution of this trust, or shall fail or refuse to execute the same when requested by the owner or holder of said debt so to do, said owner or holder shall have full power to appoint, by written instrument duly recorded in said County, a substitute trustee, and, if necessary, several substitute trustees in succession, who shall succeed to all the estate, rights, powers, and duties of the said M. H. Gos-sett, and Mortgagors do hereby ratify and confirm any and all acts which the said M. H. Gossett, Trustee, or his successor or successors in this trust, shall do lawfully by virtue hereof.”
Is an assignee of a portion of the debt an “owner or holder of said debt” within the terms of the deed of trust?
The Court in McClusky treats only the owner of the unassigned portion of the debt as being an “owner or holder.” What the holding would be if all the debt were assigned is not stated.
A trustee under a power of sale, as here, has little discretion and if he acts properly it is of little consequence to any concerned party that he is trustee A or trustee B. It is of considerable consequence to the parties, however, that if trustee A fails or refuses to act trustee B cannot lawfully act.
If the question were an open one for this Court, I would hold that the owner of an assigned portion of the debt is “an owner or holder of said debt” and would be entitled to appoint a substitute trustee if the trustee or substitute trustee appointed by the original creditor failed or refused to act. I believe this conclusion to be in accordance with a fair construction of the terms of the deed of trust by which the rights of the parties are measured.