the 249th District Court Somervell County, Texas Trial Court
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
three issues, appellant, Hiren Jain, complains about a
summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, Plainscapital
Bank. Specifically, Jain contends that: (1) Plainscapital did
not prove the elements necessary to procure a summary
judgment; (2) he presented one or more issues that preclude
summary judgment; and (3) the trial court's
summary-judgment order is void for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. We affirm.
about October 28, 2011, 7M Hospitality, Inc.
("7M"), as the borrower, executed a promissory note
with First National Bank ("FNB") in the original
principal amount of $3, 412, 500. The note was purportedly
secured by a La Quinta hotel in Glen Rose, Texas. Also on or
about October 28, 2011, Jain signed an unconditional personal
guaranty of the promissory note for the full amount of $3,
412, 500, as well as all interest, collection expenses, late
fees, acceleration fees, and attorney's fees due on every
claim involving the indebtedness of 7M under the note.
17, 2013, 7M had defaulted on the promissory note by failing
to repay FNB as promised. As indicated in its letter of
default and demand for payment, FNB accelerated the debt and
demanded payment of the principal, per-diem interest, court
and collection costs, and all fees, including attorney's
fees. FNB sent its letter of default and demand for payment
to 7M and Jain. Shortly thereafter, FNB went into
receivership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
about September 13, 2013, certain assets of FNB were
purchased by or assigned to Plainscapital. Among the assets
acquired by Plainscapital was the 7M promissory note. In its
filings in the trial court and on appeal, Plainscapital
asserts that it has been a holder in due course of the 7M
promissory note, as well as Jain's personal guaranty
since September 13, 2013.
failed to make payments according to the personal guaranty.
Accordingly, on December 3, 2013, Plainscapital sued Jain
under the personal guaranty. Jain responded to
Plainscapital's lawsuit by filing a general denial and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses, among other things.
Later, Jain filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit under the
principals of "(1) no justiciable issue[, ] (2) judicial
estoppel, (3) collateral estoppel, (4) failure of conditions
precedent, (5) lack of standing, (6) mootness, and (7) res
while the suit was pending in the trial court, 7M filed for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection on November 5, 2013. On May
14, 2014, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming
7M's plan for reorganization.
October 27, 2014, Plainscapital filed a traditional motion
for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) the personal guaranty
is a valid and enforceable contract; (2) Jain is the proper
party to sue for breach of contract; (3) Plainscapital and
its predecessor-in-interest properly performed their
contractual obligations; (4) Jain breached the personal
guaranty by failing to make payments on the 7M note; and (5)
the breach caused Plainscapital $3, 285, 966.02 in damages
with interest accruing at $280.61 per day. Additionally,
Plainscapital requested reasonable and necessary
attorney's fees incurred in the prosecution of the suit
and any subsequent appeals. Jain filed a lengthy response to
Plainscapital's summary-judgment motion.
hearing, the trial court granted Plainscapital's
traditional motion for summary judgment. The trial court
ordered Jain to pay $3, 269, 126.01 as the amount owed under
the personal guaranty, post-judgment interest at a rate of
$279.29 per day and 5% per year on the total judgment, $13,
651 in attorney's fees, costs in the amount of $1,
016.28, and additional attorney's fees for appeals to
this Court and the Texas Supreme Court.Jain filed a
motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of
law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). This appeal
Standard of Review
review the trial court's grant of a traditional motion
for summary judgment de novo. See Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex.
2003). When reviewing a traditional motion for summary
judgment, we must determine whether the movant met its burden
to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Sw. Elec.
Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002). The
movant bears the burden of proof in a traditional motion for
summary judgment, and all doubts about the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact are resolved against the
movant. See Grant, 73 S.W.3d at 215. We take as true
all evidence favorable to the non-movant, and we indulge
every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the
non-movant's favor. Valence Operating Co. v.
Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). We will affirm
a traditional summary judgment only if the record establishes
that the movant has conclusively proved its defense as a
matter of law or if the movant has negated at least one
essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.
IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v.
Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. 2004); Am. Tobacco
Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d ...