Rick Emmert v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, D/B/A Christiana Trust, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Indenture Trustee for ARLP Securitization Trust, Series 2015-1 ( 2018 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00119-CV
RICK EMMERT APPELLANT
V.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND APPELLEE
SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A CHRISTIANA
TRUST, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS
INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR ARLP
SECURITIZATION TRUST, SERIES
2015-1
----------
FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 236-272430-14
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Rick Emmert appeals from the trial court’s judgment of
foreclosure. After Emmert defaulted on a note secured by a deed of trust on his
home, the noteholder, Appellee Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, D/B/A
Christiana Trust (Wilmington), Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as
Indenture Trustee for ARLP Securitization Trust, Series 2015-1 (ARLP),2 brought
an action for judicial foreclosure. The trial court granted summary judgment for
the Lender and rendered a judgment of foreclosure. In two issues, Emmert
argues that the trial court erred by granting judgment for the Lender because the
action was barred by limitations and because the Lender failed to accelerate the
note. We affirm.
I. Background Facts
In 2008, Emmert borrowed $600,000 from the Lender under a home equity
loan. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50(a)(6). The note was secured by a deed of
trust.
On September 14, 2010, a law firm representing the Lender sent Emmert a
notice of default and intent to accelerate. Then, on February 24, 2011, the law
2
The note at issue in this case was assigned multiple times, including once
during the pendency of this suit. Emmert obtained the home equity loan from
Wachovia Mortgage, FSB. By merger, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., became the
successor to Wachovia. In August 2012, Wells Fargo assigned the deed of trust
to U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), as trustee for Stanwich Mortgage
loan trust series 2012-9 (Stanwich Mortgage). U.S. Bank, as trustee, assigned
the note and deed of trust to Wilmington, as trustee for ARLP. Therefore, to
avoid confusion, we will refer to the noteholders and previous mortgage servicer
collectively herein as “the Lender.”
2
firm sent Emmert a notice that the Lender had accelerated the maturity of the
debt.
The Lender filed this action for judicial foreclosure on June 4, 2014. It
subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, to which it attached as
evidence the note, the deed of trust, the September 14, 2010 notice of default
and intent to accelerate, and the February 24, 2011 notice of acceleration, along
with a business records affidavit from the Lender’s mortgage servicer.
Emmert filed a response asserting the defense of limitations. Emmert
argued that there was, at the least, a fact issue about whether the true
acceleration notice for limitation purposes was the February 24, 2011 notice of
acceleration relied on by the Lender or a previous, February 12, 2010 notice of
acceleration.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Lender. However, the
deed of trust had been assigned during the pendency of the suit, and the trial
court vacated the judgment at the Lender’s request so that it could substitute the
correct noteholder plaintiff. The trial court granted the Lender’s motion to
substitute the plaintiff, and the Lender filed an amended motion for summary
judgment relying on the same evidence. The trial court again granted the motion
and signed an order of judicial foreclosure. Emmert now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review a summary judgment de novo. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim,
315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). We consider the evidence presented in the
3
light most favorable to the nonmovant, crediting evidence favorable to the
nonmovant if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding evidence contrary to the
nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp
Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009). We indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. 20801,
Inc. v. Parker, 249 S.W.3d 392, 399 (Tex. 2008). A defendant who conclusively
negates at least one essential element of a cause of action is entitled to
summary judgment on that claim. Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d
494, 508 (Tex. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1180 (2011); see Tex. R. Civ. P.
166a(b), (c).
III. Analysis
Emmert raises two issues challenging the summary judgment for the
Lender. His first issue argues that the Lender’s suit is barred by the statute of
limitations applicable to foreclosure actions. His second issue argues that the
Lender’s suit was barred because it failed to accelerate the note.
A. The Lender’s Suit Is Not Barred by Limitations.
The Lender initially accelerated the note in February 2010, and under
Emmert’s first issue, he relies on that fact and asserts that pursuant to a Rule
11 agreement between the Lender and Emmert’s wife, the Lender never
rescinded that acceleration, thus making this suit outside the limitations period.
We disagree with Emmert.
4
A four-year statute of limitations applies to the Lender’s foreclosure action.
See Burney v. Citigroup Glob. Markets Realty Corp., 244 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 16.035(a) (West 2002)). The limitations period begins to run on the date
of acceleration. See id. (stating that a cause of action to recover real property or
to foreclose accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run from an
installment note’s maturity date or the date of acceleration). When this four-year
period expires, the real-property lien becomes void. See Grady v. Nationstar
Mortg., LLC, No. 02-16-00481-CV, 2017 WL 5618690, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Nov. 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 16.035(d)).
Emmert’s summary judgment evidence included a notice of acceleration
that the Lender sent to the Emmerts on February 12, 2010. Based on that
notice, Emmert argues that summary judgment for the bank was improper.
The Lender filed this suit on June 4, 2014, which was more than four years
from the initial February 12, 2010 notice of acceleration. However, that fact does
not establish Emmert’s limitations defense as a matter of law because the
Lender’s summary judgment evidence included evidence that it abandoned its
February 12, 2010 acceleration.
“Texas appellate courts have held that the holder of a note who has
exercised its option to accelerate may unilaterally abandon acceleration of the
note so long as the borrower neither detrimentally relied on the acceleration nor
5
objected to the abandonment of the acceleration.” Graham v. LNV Corp.,
No. 03-16-00235-CV, 2016 WL 6407306, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 26, 2016,
pet. denied) (mem. op.) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The note holder
may waive or abandon acceleration by agreement or by action. Id.; see also
Khan v. GBAK Props., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2012, no pet.). “Although more recent cases refer to the rescission of
acceleration as abandonment, the underlying concept is based on waiver.” NSL
Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 02-16-00397-CV,
2017 WL 3526354, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 17, 2017, pet. denied)
(mem. op.); cf. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. King, 167 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex.
Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1942, writ ref’d) (“[A]fter a note has been declared all due
under a provision giving the holder the option to do so, [the holder may] waive or
rescind such action so as to reinstate the note and make it payable again
according to its original terms.”); Manes v. Bletsch, 239 S.W. 307, 308 (Tex. Civ.
App.—Austin 1922, no writ) (“Appellant contends that, having already exercised
his option, the same was irrevocable. This may be true as against the will of the
payer, but, where the payer is not objecting to the recall of such option, we can
see no reason why the payee could not revoke the same as well as not to have
exercised it in the beginning.”). “Although waiver is ordinarily a question of fact,
when the facts and circumstances are admitted or clearly established, the
question becomes one of law.” Motor Vehicle Bd. of Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. El
Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass’n, 1 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. 1999).
6
The Lender’s summary judgment evidence included a September 14,
2010 notice of default and intent to accelerate. This notice told the Emmerts:
(1) that the loan was in default; (2) that Emmert needed to make payments “of all
sums necessary to bring such loan current according to [its] terms,” which was
$67,806.99 plus interest and additional charges; (3) that if they failed to cure the
default within thirty days, “the Mortgage Servicer will accelerate the maturity
date of the Note evidencing the loan and declare all sums due thereunder
immediately due and payable,” and “[t]he property will then be scheduled for
foreclosure sale”; and (4) that Emmert had the right to reinstate after
acceleration. [Emphasis added.] The notice contained no language evidencing
an intent not to abandon acceleration.
This court recently held that a similar notice, “which is replete with
language inconsistent with the then-present right to foreclose—compels the
conclusion that the lender abandoned the acceleration.” NSL Prop. Holdings,
2017 WL 3526354, at *5 (footnote omitted); see also Boren v. U.S. Nat’l Bank
Ass’n, 807 F.3d 99, 106 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that lender’s second notice of
default—which informed the debtors that the total amount necessary to bring
their loan current was the amount due under the original terms of the note and
that it would accelerate the maturity date of the loan if the debtors failed to pay
this amount—“unequivocally manifested an intent to abandon the previous
acceleration” (emphasis added)). We reach the same conclusion here. The
Lender’s September 14, 2010 notice of default and intent to accelerate
7
constituted an unequivocal abandonment of its prior February 12,
2010 acceleration. Accordingly, the limitations period began to run as of the
Lender’s subsequent acceleration on February 24, 2011, and the Lender
therefore filed this suit within the four-year limitations period.
Emmert hotly contests the Lender’s waiver of acceleration. To do so, he
relies on a Rule 11 agreement reached by the parties in a separate suit from
2010 regarding the sending of notices to Emmert’s wife, Diana Emmert. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.3 Though he does not explain the context for the Rule
11 agreement in his brief, in Emmert’s summary judgment response, he alleged
that in March 2010, the Lender filed a petition against him and Diana for
expedited foreclosure in the 352nd district court of Tarrant County. Diana was
not a signatory on the note, and the Lender did not send notices to her. The
parties in that suit agreed via Rule 11 that the Lender would send notices to
Diana before any hearing. Then, according to Emmert’s summary judgment
response, the Lender voluntarily dismissed the suit in December 2010.4 In
February 2011, the Lender sent notices of acceleration to Diana and Emmert.
3
Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “Unless
otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties
touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed
with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and
entered of record.”
4
The appellate record does not include the dismissal order, but the Lender
agrees that this suit was dismissed.
8
On appeal, Emmert argues that in the Rule 11 agreement from the
2010 expedited foreclosure action in the 352nd district court, “[i]t was agreed that
the lienholder would send the required notices to Diane Emmert only,” and “[i]t
was not part of the agreement to resend notice to Rick Emmert. Therefore, the
debt, as to Rick Emmert, was accelerated on 2-10-2010.” He further argues that
“by stating specifically on the Rule 11 Agreement that only Diane Emmert would
get the required notices . . . , it shows that Emmert objected to a Rescission of
the notices that were sent to him.”
We disagree. Indeed, the docket sheet for the suit in the 352nd district
court has the following notation indicating the Rule 11 agreement between the
parties:
Hrg on appl. for exp foreclosure—atty for both sides appeared &
agreed that applicant would serve all required notices on resp. Diana
Emmert (only served Rick Emmert, the debtor) and meanwhile
parties would attempt a work-out of the debt; hrg will be R/S if
parties fail to reach agreement & after D.E. receives notices.
Even assuming that this Rule 11 agreement—made in a different suit in a
different court—would bind the parties after dismissal of the case and in this
subsequent suit, the court’s notation indicates only that the parties would hold off
on a hearing on the foreclosure suit while (1) the parties attempted to work out
the debt and (2) the Lender sent Diana all required notices. It states that Diana
had not been served previously, but it does not express an agreement that the
Lender would serve only Diana with any notices going forward, that Emmert did
not agree to be served with any notices going forward, or that Emmert objected
9
to any rescission the Lender might send him. To the extent the parties had any
such agreement, this docket sheet notation is no evidence of it. We overrule
Emmert’s first issue.
B. The Lender Accelerated the Note.
In his second issue, Emmert argues that the Lender’s failure to accelerate
the Note before obtaining judicial foreclosure estopped it from foreclosing on the
property. Although the phrasing of his issue raises estoppel, his argument is one
of sufficiency—that the Lender’s summary judgment evidence failed to establish
that it accelerated the note. Emmert bases his argument on a notice the Lender
sent the Emmerts on April 4, 2014, rescinding the note’s acceleration.
The Emmerts responded to the rescission notice with a letter, dated April
23, 2014, objecting to and rejecting the rescission. Whether a lender may
unilaterally waive acceleration over the objection of the debtor is a question that
the Texas supreme court has yet to address. See Callan v. Deutsche Bank Tr.
Co. Ams., 93 F. Supp. 3d 725, 727–37 (S.D. Tex. 2015), appeal dism’d as moot,
654 Fed. Appx. 171 (5th Cir. 2016) (thoroughly discussing Texas law on
unilateral rescission of acceleration). Texas courts of appeals, on the other
hand, have long held that a lender may unilaterally abandon acceleration if the
borrower has not objected or detrimentally relied on the acceleration. Boren v.
U.S. Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 807 F.3d 99, 105 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Texas’ intermediate
appellate courts are in agreement that the holder of a note may unilaterally
abandon acceleration after its exercise, so long[ ] as the borrower neither objects
10
to abandonment nor has detrimentally relied on the acceleration.” (emphasis
added) (collecting cases)). We need not address the question because the filing
of suit itself may constitute notice of acceleration. See Meadowbrook Gardens,
Ltd. v. WMFMT Real Estate Ltd. P’ship, 980 S.W.2d 916, 919 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 1998, pet. denied) (holding that the lender’s notice of intent to accelerate
coupled with its notice of foreclosure sale amounted to acceleration); see also
Joy Corp. v. Nob Hill N. Props., Ltd., 543 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler
1976, no writ) (stating that to accelerate, a lienholder must make a formal
demand for the payment of the past due amount, give an opportunity to make the
payment, and “[d]eclare that the entire debt is due, or take some unequivocal
action, such as filing suit, which indicates that the entire debt is due” (emphasis
added)).
In this case, the Lender gave Emmert notice on September 14, 2010 of its
intent to accelerate. If Emmert’s notice of objection to the Lender’s rescission
was effective, then the rescission failed, and the Lender’s prior acceleration
remained in effect at the time it filed this suit. If Emmert’s notice of objection to
the Lender’s attempt at rescission was ineffective, then the Lender rescinded its
prior acceleration, and its filing of this suit constituted notice of acceleration.
Under either circumstance, the evidence establishes that the Lender accelerated
the note. We therefore overrule Emmert’s second issue.
11
IV. Conclusion
Having overruled both of Emmert’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment of foreclosure.
/s/ Mark T. Pittman
MARK T. PITTMAN
JUSTICE
PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.
DELIVERED: February 22, 2018
12