UNIQUE M. GREEN, Appellant
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND ONEWESTBANK, N.A., Appellees
Appeal from the 269th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-36481
consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, Hightower.
RUSSELL LLOYD, JUSTICE
Unique M. Green, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial
court's order granting summary judgment in favor of
appellees Federal National Mortgage Association
("FNMA") and OneWest Bank, N.A.
("OneWest") on her claims for wrongful foreclosure
and wrongful eviction. In her sole issue, Green contends that
the trial court erred in granting appellees' no-evidence
motion for summary judgment because she presented more than a
scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material
fact with regard to her claims. We affirm.
24, 2015, Green, pro se, filed suit against FNMA alleging
claims for wrongful foreclosure and wrongful eviction. In her
petition, Green alleged that she was a bona fide purchaser
and the owner of the property located at 3129 Elpyco Street,
Houston, Texas 77051. On April 25, 2016, Green amended her
petition and added OneWest as a defendant.
January 10, 2018, appellees filed a no-evidence motion for
summary judgment. In their motion, they argued that Green had
failed to produce any evidence raising a material fact issue
on any of the elements of her wrongful foreclosure and
wrongful eviction claims. On February 5, 2018, Green, then
represented by counsel, filed a response to appellees'
no-evidence motion. In her response, she requested that the
trial court continue the hearing on appellees' motion and
argued that she had produced sufficient evidence to defeat
appellees' no-evidence motion.
February 6, 2018, the trial court granted appellees'
no-evidence motion for summary judgment. On February 28,
2018, Green filed a motion for reconsideration. On March 29,
2018, the trial court denied Green's motion and entered a
final judgment in favor of appellees, dismissing Green's
claims with prejudice. This appeal followed.
appeal, Green contends that the trial court erred in granting
appellees' no-evidence summary judgment motion because
she raised a material issue of fact on all the elements of
her wrongful foreclosure and wrongful eviction claims when
she produced proof that she owned the property to appellees
nearly a year before they filed their motion.
Standard of Review
review a trial court's summary judgment de novo.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862
(Tex. 2010). When reviewing a summary judgment motion, we
must (1) take as true all evidence favorable to the
nonmovant, and (2) indulge every reasonable inference and
resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Valence
Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.
2005) (citing Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v.
Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003)). If a trial
court grants summary judgment without specifying the grounds
for granting the motion, we must uphold the trial court's
judgment if any one of the grounds is meritorious.
Rampersad v. CenterPoint Energy Hous. Elec., LLC,
554 S.W.3d 29, 32 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no
an adequate time for discovery, the party without the burden
of proof may move for a no-evidence summary judgment on the
basis that there is no evidence to support an essential
element of the non-movant's claim. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(i);
Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008).
The trial court must grant the no-evidence summary judgment
unless the non-movant produces competent summary judgment
evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the
challenged elements. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(i); Hamilton,
249 S.W.3d at 426.
no-evidence summary judgment motion is essentially a motion
for a pretrial directed verdict. Mack Trucks, Inc. v.
Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 581 (Tex. 2006). Accordingly, we
apply the same legal sufficiency standard of review that we
apply when reviewing a directed verdict. City of Keller
v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005). Applying
that standard, a no-evidence point will be sustained when (1)
there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (2)
the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving
weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact,
(3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is ...