Trujillo v. Regions Bank

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (jk)

P/i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
AUSTIN DIVISION

26 4,
"/0:

Oy

/ /

X4 s

EMMA TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff,
Case No. A-13-CA-799-SS

-vs-

REGIONS BANK,
Defendant.

ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and

specifically Defendant Regions Bank's Motion for Sunmiary Judgment [#21], to which Plaintiff

Emma Trujillo has not responded. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant law, and the file
as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders GRANTING the motion.

Background
On October 3, 1997, Emma Trujillo purchased 24.476 acres of real property located at 9780
FM 86 in Caidwell County, Texas. The note was secured by a deed of trust, and the title of the

property was vested solely in Trujillo.

See

Mot. Summ. J. [#21-1] Ex.

1

(Rider to Deed of Trust).

On April 20, 2002, Trujillo and Albert Alvarez entered into a financing agreement (the construction

loan) with Tilson Home Corporation to build a custom home on the property. To secure payment
for the construction of the home, Tilson placed a contractor's lien in the name of Trujillo and

Alvarez on the home and the property. The contractor's lien was in the amount of$ 105,089.00. Id.

VI

Trujillo and Alvarez later decided to bundle the property loan and the construction loan and
refinance them solely in Alvarez's name, and on November 27, 2002, Alvarez signed a promissory
note (the Note) with TXL Mortgage Corporation.

See

id.

Ex.

2 (the Note). The principal sum of the

Note was $127,089.00. The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust.

See Id.

Ex. 3 (Deed of Trust).

The Deed of Trust contains a provision providing the right to accelerate all sums secured by the Deed

of Trust and to invoke its power of sale. Id. On November 27, 2002, the Note and Deed of Trust
were assigned to Union Planters Bank, N.A., which merged with Regions Bank in July 2004.
The bank promised to use the loan proceeds to pay off the balance of the $30,839.76 property

loan and the balance of the $105,089.00 construction loan, thereby extinguishing the liens that

encumbered the property. After Alvarez executed the Note, the bank fulfilled its promise and paid

off the balance of the property loan and the construction loan. In exchange for the bank's payment,
the removal of liens, and lower interest rates, Alvarez promised to repay the Note, and Alvarez and

Trujillo agreed to secure this promise with the Deed of Trust in the name of both Alvarez and
Trujillo. Both Alvarez and Trujillo signed the Deed of Trust. Id.
As Defendant summarizes the transaction, it provided the following benefits: (1) the bank

received the right to access interest on a Note secured by a Deed of Trust and the right to foreclose
on the property if the Note was in default; (2) Alvarez received the benefit of interest rates lower

than those applicable to the construction loan; (3) Alvarez and Trujillo jointly received the benefit

of extinguishing the contractor's lien; and (4) Trujillo received the benefit of paying offthe property
loan and extinguishing the original deed of trust that burdened the property. Trujillo also received

the indirect benefit of a Note with interest rates lower than those applicable to the construction loan
and lower than those she could have obtained on her own.

-2-

In October 2005, Alvarez stopped making mortgage payments, and the Note was in default.

InNovember 2005, Trujillo's attorney demanded Regions Bank recognize Trujillo's position as coborrower on the Note. Trujillo paid the arrears and made the mortgage payments for the next seven
years. In 2013, Truj illo stopped making payments, and the Note was again in default. In July 2013,
Trujillo received the notice of acceleration of the Note and of the impending foreclosure sale. Prior
to the sale, Trujillo filed her "Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment Application for Temporary

Restraining Order and Entry of Permanent Injunction," seeking an injunction and asserting claims
for breach of contract, gross negligence, attempt to wrongfully foreclose, interference with business

relations, detrimental reliance, bad faithlfraudulent conduct, slander of title, and fraud against
Regions Bank.

See Notice

Removal [#1-3] Ex. A (Orig. Pet.). Trujillo filed her lawsuit on August

31, 2013, in the 22nd Judicial District Court

of Caldwell County, Texas. On September 11,2013,

Regions Bank removed the case to this Court.

See

id.

[#1].

Regions Bank agreed to delay exercising its foreclosure rights and not engage in feegenerating discovery and litigation practices based on Trujillo's representation she would pay the

amount in arrears by obtaining financial assistance from her son or by selling a portion of the
property and would dismiss her claims. From May2013 to July 2014, Truj illo remained in the home

without making mortgage payments. On July 7, 2014, she sold a portion of her property, and,

through that sale, satisfied the Note, allowing her to keep her home. Yet, to date, Trujillo has failed
to dismiss her lawsuit. Regions Bank has therefore moved for summary judgment to bring an end
to his matter.

-3-

Analysis
As an initial matter, the Court notes Trujillo has not filed a response to Defendant's motion

for summary judgment, a motion filed on February 20, 2015. Because Trujillo has not filed a

response, the Court grants the motion as unopposed. See Local Rule CV-7(e)(2). The Court

nevertheless addresses the merits of the motion below, and agrees with Defendant's position.
I.

Legal StandardSummary Judgment
Summary judgment shall be rendered when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure

materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Washburn

v.

FED. R.

Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp.

Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2007).

A dispute regarding a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict in favor ofthe nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view all inferences

drawn from the factual record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co.

v.

Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Washburn, 504 F.3d at 508. Further, a court

"may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence" in ruling on a motion for summary

judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Anderson, 477
U.S. at 254-55.
Once the moving party has made an initial showing that there is no evidence to support the

nonmoving party's case, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary

judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Mere
conclusoiy allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and thus are insufficient to

defeat a motion for summaryjudgment. Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343
(5th Cir. 2007). Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are

not competent summary judgment evidence. Id. The party opposing summary judgment is required
to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which that evidence

supports his claim. Adams

v,

Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2006).

Rule 56 does not impose a duty on the court to "sift through the record in search of evidence" to

support the nonmovant's opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Id. "Only disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing laws will properly preclude the

entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Disputed fact issues that are "irrelevant
and unnecessary" will not be considered by a court in ruling on a summary judgment motion. Id.

If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to its case and on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment must
be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.

II.

Application
Since Trujillo has not responded or done much of anything in her own lawsuit, she has not

provided the Court with any summary judgment evidence supporting her claims. After review of
the evidence provided by Defendant, it is apparent Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on
all

A.

of Trujillo's claims.
Breach of Contract
Trujillo alleges Regions Bank is liable for breach of an implied contract to communicate and

accept payment from Trujillo on the Note. Orig. Pet. ¶ 17. A claim for breach of implied contract

requires the plaintiff prove the parties engaged in conduct indicating a mutual intent to form a

contract, Haws & Garrett Gen. Contractors, Inc.

v.

Gorbett Bros. Welding Co., 480 S .W.2d 607,

609 (Tex. 1972). Here, there is no evidence of mutual intent to support a finding of an implied

contract, there is no evidence of breach, and there is no evidence Trujillo suffered any damages as
the result of any breach. As such, Regions Bank is entitled to judgment on Trujillo ' s claim for

breach of implied contract.
B.

Gross Negligence
Trujillo alleges Regions Bank was grossly negligent in allowing Alvarez, Trujillo ' s boyfriend

or spouse, to execute the Deed of Trust to secure the Note. Orig. Pet. ¶ 18. Trujillo's claim is

curious considering she signed the Deed of Trust herself as the "wife" of Alvarez. See Deed of

Trust. Nevertheless, Trujillo has presented no evidence to support any element of a negligence
claim, much less a gross negligence claim. Regions Bank is entitled to judgment.
C.

Wrongful Foreclosure Attempt
Trujillo alleges Regions Bank "attempted to wrongfully foreclose" on the property. Id. ¶ 19.

The elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim are: (1) a defect in the foreclosure sale proceedings;
(2) a grossly inadequate sales price; and (3) a causal connection between the defect and the grossly

inadequate sales price.

Charter Nat'l BankHous.

App.Houston [14th Dist.]

v.

Stevens, 781 S.W.2d 368, 371 (Tex.

1989, writ denied). There is no evidence Regions Bank failed to comply

with the power of sale terms in the Deed of Trust or with

§

51.002 of the Texas Property Code. The

Court grants Regions Bank's request for summary judgment on the wrongful foreclosure attempt
claim.
D.

Interference in Contractual and Business Relations
Trujillo alleges Regions Bank interfered in contractual and business relations. Orig. Pet.

¶ 20. To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with an existing contract, Trujillo must provide
evidence: (1) Truj illo had a valid contract; (2) Regions Bank willfully and intentionally interfered

with the contract; (3) the interference proximately caused Truj illo' s injury; and (4) Truj illo incurred
actual damage or loss. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 207 (Tex. 2002). To prevail on
a claim for tortious interference with prospective relations, Trujillo must provide evidence: (1) there

was a reasonable probability she would have entered into a business relationship with a third party;
(2) Regions Bank intentionally interfered with the relationship; (3) Region Bank's conduct was

independently tortious or unlawful; (4) the interference proximately caused Trujillo's injury; and
(5) Trujillo suffered actual damage or loss. Coinmach Corp.

v.

AspenwoodApt. Corp., 417 S.W.3d

909, 923 (Tex. 2013). Trujillo presents no evidence to support either of these causes of action, and

Regions Bank is entitled to summary judgment on those claims.
E.

Detrimental Reliance
Trujillo alleges Regions Bank induced her reliance on an established course of dealing to her

detriment. Orig. Pet. ¶ 21. Under Texas law, "detrimental reliance" is not a separate tort cause of
action. Garcia v. Lucero, 366 S.W.3d 275, 281-82 (Tex.

App.El Paso 2012, no pet.) (citation

omitted). Additionally, there is no evidence to support any such claim. Regions Bank's motion for
summary judgment on the claim is granted.
F.

Bad Faith/Fraudulent Conduct
Trujillo alleges Regions Bank is liable for bad faith in pursuing the foreclosure action. Orig.

Pet. ¶ 22. Trujillo also alleges Regions Bank breached its duty

of good faith and fair dealing with

respect to the Note and its efforts to foreclose on the property. Id. ¶ 23. Trujillo argues Regions
Bank disregarded the fact the collateral was put up in the course of a fraud and the property owner
-7-

was not a signatory to the Note. Id. ¶ 22. Here, there is no evidence to support Trujillo's bad faith
or fraud claims. Trujillo signed the Deed of Trust as Alvarez's wife, and there is no indication

Alvarez committed fraud in securing the Note with the Deed of Trust. Regions Bank is entitled to

judgment on Trujillo's claims for bad faith and fraudulent conduct.
G.

Slander of Title
Trujiilo alleges Regions Bank is liable for slander of title. Orig. Pet. ¶ 24. To prove slander

of title, Trujillo must produce evidence showing: (1) the uttering and publishing of the disparaging
words; (2) the words were false; (3) the words were malicious; (4) Trujillo sustained special damages

thereby; and (5) Trujillo possessed an interest in the property disparaged. Taub
Co., 75 S.W.3d 606, 616 (Tex.

v.

Hous. Pipeline

App.Texarkana 2002, pet. denied). Trujillo must further

demonstrate the loss of a specific sale in order to recover. Id. There is no evidence Regions Bank
made a false and malicious statement and no evidence of a loss of a specific sale of property.

Regions Bank is entitled to judgment on the claim.

Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law, and Trujillo is not entitled to any of her requested relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Regions Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment
[#21] is GRANTED.

SIGNED this the

S-day of March 2015.

/m4pW4-

SAM SPARKS
U
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

799 msj ordjtw.frm

-8-