Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 048-304598-18
Gabriel, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ.
Harriet Nicholson sued Appellees Bank of America, N.A. (BoA)
and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), and other
defendants on claims related to the foreclosure of her home.
The trial court granted summary judgment for BoA and
Countrywide and severed the claims against them. Nicholson
appeals from both the grant of summary judgment and the
severance. We affirm.
3, 2012, the substitute trustee under a deed of trust
foreclosed on Nicholson's Tarrant County property.
However, the notice of foreclosure sale listed the Dallas
County courthouse as the location of the sale rather than the
Tarrant County courthouse.
the purchaser at the foreclosure sale brought a forcible
detainer action to evict her, Nicholson filed suit in the
342nd district court of Tarrant County against the purchaser,
the substitute trustee, BoA, and others for claims arising
from the foreclosure sale and to stop her eviction. While
that suit (Nicholson I) was pending, the substitute
trustee executed a rescission of the 2012 foreclosure sale
and of the substitute trustee's deed, and he recorded
this instrument in the Tarrant County real property records.
On October 26, 2017, the trial court signed a final judgment
ordering that the substitute trustee's deed and
rescission were invalid and void and dismissing
Nicholson's remaining claims with prejudice.
2016, before rendition of a final judgment in Nicholson
I, Nicholson filed this suit against the substitute
trustee in the 48th district court of Tarrant County. By
amended pleadings, she added Countrywide and BoA as
defendants. In Nicholson's eighth amended petition, she
asserted (as she had in Nicholson I) claims for
violations of Section 12.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, negligence per se, gross negligence, and
fraud, and she sought declaratory relief. She also alleged
civil conspiracy to commit fraud.
and BoA each filed a motion for summary judgment. In
BoA's motion, it asserted that it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because Nicholson's claims
were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. It
challenged Nicholson's tort claims on the ground that
they were barred by the economic loss doctrine. It further
moved for summary judgment on each of Nicholson's claims
on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment "as a
matter of law and undisputed fact" and that
"Plaintiff cannot prove with competent summary judgment
evidence each element of her claim." Countrywide moved
for summary judgment on identical grounds.
trial court granted Countrywide's and BoA's summary
judgment motions without specifying the grounds and
subsequently granted their motions to sever. Nicholson filed
a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.
Nicholson now appeals.
This court has jurisdiction over both of
begin by considering Appellees' argument that we do not
have jurisdiction over Nicholson's first issue. See
In re City of Dallas, 501 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. 2016)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam). They argue that this court
should dismiss Nicholson's first issue "in which she
attempts to challenge the [summary judgment orders],"
because in the section of her notice of appeal listing the
date of the orders from which she appealed, she listed only
the dates of the severance order-which rendered the summary
judgments final-and the order denying her motion for new
trial. We disagree.
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal
must "state the date of the judgment or order appealed
from." Tex.R.App.P. 25.1(d)(2). However, "[t]he
requirement in Rule 25.1(d) that the notice of appeal must
state the date of the judgment or order appealed from does
not . . . limit what trial court rulings may be challenged on
appeal," but rather "is used to determine whether
the appeal is timely." Anderson v. Long, 118
S.W.3d 806, 810 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
Nicholson's notice of appeal invoked this court's
jurisdiction over Appellees, and Rule 25.1 does not limit the
issues that Nicholson may bring on appeal. See id.
at 809 (stating that "Anderson's timely filing of
her notice of appeal invoked our jurisdiction over the Longs,
who were parties to the order sustaining the plea to the
jurisdiction" and that "[n]othing in [Texas Rule ...