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.

Marshall v. PrimeWay Federal Credit Union

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

July 25, 2019

JESSIE LAVALLE MARSHALL, Appellant
v.
PRIMEWAY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-17060

          Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Evelyn V. Keyes Justice.

         Appellant 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.

         In a single cross-point, PrimeWay asks that we reform the trial court's judgment to correct alleged errors regarding contractual and post-judgment interest.

         We affirm.

         Background

         Marshall 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).

         Marshall 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, 2017."

         In his 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).

         On 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 payments.

         On 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.

         On 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 the payment.

         PrimeWay 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.

         The 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.

         Marshall 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. 301 ...


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.