Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017-17060
consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.
V. Keyes Justice.
Jessie Lavalle Marshall challenges the trial court's
order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee,
PrimeWay Federal Credit Union, on PrimeWay's suit for
payment of a promissory note (the "Note") and on
Marshall's counterclaim alleging that PrimeWay
misrepresented the amount of his debt on the Note in
violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act
("TDCA"). See Tex. Fin. Code §§
392.001-.404. Marshall also challenges the trial court's
denial of his motion for new trial.
single cross-point, PrimeWay asks that we reform the trial
court's judgment to correct alleged errors regarding
contractual and post-judgment interest.
borrowed $10, 000.00 from PrimeWay at an annual interest rate
of 13.74% annually pursuant to a Note requiring him to make
monthly payments of $248.55 (after the first month).
fell behind on his payments, and on March 10, 2017, PrimeWay
filed suit against him alleging that "as of February 7,
2017, $10, 043.54 is owed, plus interest on the principal
balance of $9, 513.81, at the rate of 13.74% per annum, plus
reasonable attorney's fees, and other costs."
PrimeWay attached the Note and a payoff statement showing
Marshall's balance on the Note "as of February 7,
answer, Marshall alleged as an affirmative defense that
"the amount of the indebtedness referred to [in]
Plaintiffs Original Petition is incorrect and exceeds the
amount of the debt actually owed." On the same day, he
also filed a counterclaim alleging that by failing to credit
him with three payments he made after PrimeWay filed its
petition, PrimeWay misrepresented the amount of his debt in
violation of the TDCA. See Tex. Fin. Code §
392.304(a)(8) (prohibiting debt collector from using
fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations that
include misrepresenting character, extent, or amount of
consumer debt or misrepresenting consumer debt's status
in judicial or governmental proceeding).
August 29, 2017, PrimeWay filed an amended petition crediting
Marshall with the payments he made in March, April, May, and
June of 2017-after PrimeWay had filed its original petition.
Attached was an updated payoff statement showing the recent
November 27, 2017, PrimeWay filed a combined traditional
summary-judgment motion on its claim against Marshall for
failure to pay the Note and no-evidence summary-judgment
motion seeking dismissal of Marshall's counterclaim.
December 21, 2017, Marshall filed a response. In it, he did
not dispute that he had failed to make payments on the Note;
instead, he argued that PrimeWay had "failed to give him
credit" for his December 19, 2017 payment of $250.00. In
addition to his own affidavit stating that he had made the
December 19, 2017 payment, Marshall attached a receipt for
filed a reply acknowledging Marshall's December 19, 2017
payment and attaching a revised proposed final judgment
reflecting an offset for the payment of $250.00.
trial court signed PrimeWay's revised final judgment
rendering summary judgment for PrimeWay (1) on its claim for
failure to pay the Note, and (2) on Marshall's
counterclaim under the TDCA. The trial court awarded PrimeWay
damages, interest, attorney's fees, and court costs.
filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the trial
court's judgment did not conform to PrimeWay's
summary-judgment motion because the judgment credited him
with his December payment, but PrimeWay's
summary-judgment motion did not. See Tex. R. Civ. P.