Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Colon v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

July 27, 2017

LUIS R. COLON APPELLANT
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS TRUSTEE FOR PRETIUM MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST APPELLEE

         FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2015-005687-1

          PANEL: SUDDERTH, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]

          BONNIE SUDDERTH, JUSTICE

         I. Introduction

          In four points in this forcible detainer appeal, Appellant Luis R. Colon appeals the trial court's judgment of possession for Appellee Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, D/B/A Christiana Trust, Not Individually but as Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust (Wilmington). We affirm.

         II. Factual and Procedural Background

         Colon obtained a mortgage, secured by a deed of trust, on the property at issue, 12634 Bay Avenue, Euless, Texas, 76040. After Colon defaulted on the mortgage, Wilmington purchased the property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.

         Wilmington issued notices to vacate and then filed a petition for forcible detainer in the justice court after Colon failed to vacate the premises.[2] In response, Colon filed a plea in abatement and an original answer subject to that plea. In his plea in abatement, Colon complained that Wilmington's petition did not comply with rule of civil procedure 510.3(a), that Wilmington could not prove that it was properly in the property's chain of title, that Wilmington was not entitled to treat him as a tenant at sufferance, and that there was a title dispute that deprived the justice court of jurisdiction.

         At the trial de novo in the county court at law, Wilmington offered, and the trial court admitted into evidence, a certified copy of the deed of trust signed by Colon, [3] a certified copy of the substitute trustee's deed reflecting the sale of the property to Wilmington, and a business records affidavit attached to the notices to vacate sent to each borrower by both regular and certified mail and to all occupants by first class mail. The trial court awarded possession of the property to Wilmington. After a hearing, the trial court denied Colon's motion for new trial, and this appeal followed.

         III. Analysis

         In his first point, Colon contends that Wilmington's pleading was not a valid pleading on which judgment could have been granted because it was not "sworn to by the plaintiff" as required by rule of civil procedure 510.3(a). In making this argument, Colon urges this court to revisit our decision in Norvelle v. PNC Mortgage, 472 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2015, no pet.). In Norvelle, we held,

[T]he petition filed in the justice court contained a verification sworn to by the Bank's counsel, stating her authority to make the affidavit and swearing that the facts contained in the pleading were both within her personal knowledge and true and correct. As she acted as the Bank's corporeal agent for purposes of instituting the action, this was sufficient to meet rule 510.3(a)'s requirements.

Id. at 449. Wilmington's amended petition for forcible detainer was signed by its counsel and contained a verification by her, stating her authority to make the petition and verification and swearing that the facts contained within the amended petition for forcible detainer were within her personal knowledge and true and correct. Declining Colon's invitation to reconsider Norvelle, we overrule his first point.

         In his remaining points, Colon argues that Wilmington's pleading was invalid because Wilmington lacked standing to prosecute its claim, that Wilmington was not entitled to rely on the deed of trust's tenancy-at-sufferance language because it was not in privity of contract with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.