law-promissory-note-suit | suit on promissory note | deficiency judgment |
SUIT ON PROMISSORY NOTE | APPELLATE CASES
09‑0517
RELIANCE CAPITAL, INC. v. G.R. HMAIDAN, INC., G.R. HMAIDAN AND ISAM HMAIDAN; from Harris County; 14th
district (14‑07‑01059‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05‑14‑09, pet denied Nov. 2009) Reliance Capital, Inc. v. G.R.
Hmaidan, Inc (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 14, 2009)(Hedges)(promissory note suit, res judicata, UFTA)
09-0690
RAGHBIR SANDHU v. PINGLIA INVESTMENTS OF TEXAS, L.L.C. AND SUMMER PINGLIA; from Harris County;
14th district (14-08-00184-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-25-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(promissory note suit, SJ for
plaintiff affirmed) (commercial real estate transaction: financing of purchase of shopping center, suit for breach
of promissory note, summary judgment procedure, affirmative defenses not properly asserted in response to
Plaintiff's motion, proof of balance due and damages in note suit)
Appellant, Raghbir Sandhu, appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellees, Pinglia Investments of Texas, L.
L.C. and Sumer Pinglia, in their suit to recover on a promissory note. In four issues, Sandhu contends (1) the
trial court erred by granting summary judgment after trial began, (2) there was a genuine issue of material fact
on whether Sandhu received the loan proceeds at issue, (3) there was no competent summary-judgment
evidence regarding the amount of damages, and (4) Sandhu raised a fact issue on each element of his
affirmative defenses. We affirm.
08-0726
BAIR CHASE PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, KENNETH A. BARFIELD AND WESTERN PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC v. S&K DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.; from Travis County; 3rd district
(03‑07‑00461‑CV, 260 SW3d 133, 06‑05‑08)(suit on note, usury)
Appellants Bair Chase Property Company ("BCPC"), Kenneth A. Barfield, and Western Property Development
Company ("Western Property") (collectively, "Bair Chase"), appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of
S&K Development Company ("S&K"), as well as an award of attorney's fees to S&K. S&K initially brought suit
against Bair Chase to recover on a promissory note and guaranty agreement. In response, Bair Chase
brought a counterclaim for usury, leading S&K to take corrective action under the Texas Finance Code. S&K
then filed a traditional motion for summary judgment on the note and a no-evidence motion for summary
judgment on the usury counterclaim. The trial court granted both motions and awarded S&K attorney's fees and
costs. Because we have determined that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment, we affirm the
trial court's order in that respect. However, because S&K failed to segregate its attorney's fees, the award of
attorney's fees is reversed and remanded for a redetermination after fees incurred by S&K in correcting alleged
usury violations are segregated from fees incurred in pursuing S&K's recovery on the note.
08-0281
ALBERT O. AUSTIN v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., REX L. KESSLER, THOMAS E. REDDER AND
KEITH MORRIS; from Harris County; 1st district (01-06-00547-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-07-08, pet. denied July
2008) (suit on promissory note)
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions homepage |