CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nancy Alanis v. US Bank National Association as Successor Trustee to Bank of America National Association, as Successor by Merger to One LaSalle Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 2006-HE6

Nancy Alanis sued U.S. Bank National Association, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., and The Law Offices of Mann & Stevens for fraud and violations of debt collection statutes related to the foreclosure of her San Antonio property. Following a jury trial, Alanis was awarded damages against U.S. Bank for Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations and against BAC for common-law fraud, including attorney's fees, while Mann & Stevens received a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, Alanis challenged the denial of declaratory judgments, the granting of JNOV for Mann & Stevens, and the reduction of her damages due to settlement credits and comparative liability. U.S. Bank and BAC cross-appealed the damages for out-of-pocket expenses and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's JNOV for Mann & Stevens and the application of comparative responsibility and settlement credit, but reversed the award of out-of-pocket damages and attorney's fees to Alanis, resulting in a net recovery of $0 for Alanis from U.S. Bank and BAC.

ForeclosureHome Equity LoanFraudDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTexas Finance CodeTexas Property CodeAppellate DecisionJury Verdict ReviewComparative Liability
References
48
Case No. 02-14-00304-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

Barry Nussbaum v. Builders Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation

This appeal arises from competing summary-judgment motions in a bill-of-review proceeding, focusing on whether a defendant's failure to update a contractually-agreed-to address for service of process constitutes fault or negligence precluding bill-of-review relief. Appellant Barry Nussbaum had guaranteed a loan from Appellee Builders Bank. When the borrower defaulted, Builders Bank sued Nussbaum for breach of the guaranty, obtaining a default judgment when Nussbaum failed to answer. Nussbaum filed a bill-of-review challenging the default judgment, claiming improper service. Builders Bank filed a cross-motion, arguing Nussbaum's own fault contributed to the default. The trial court denied Nussbaum's motion, granted Builders Bank's, and dismissed the bill-of-review. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Nussbaum's failure to update his address, as required by the guaranty, constituted fault or negligence, thereby precluding him from obtaining bill-of-review relief.

Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentService of ProcessContractual WaiverDue ProcessSummary Judgment ReviewGuaranty AgreementFault and NegligenceAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
40
Case No. 13-14-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Laredo National Bank D/B/A as BBVA Compass Bank v. Myrna Elizabeth De Luna Morales

This case involves an interlocutory appeal of a district court's order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was issued to prevent Appellant Laredo National Bank d/b/a BBVA Compass Bank from proceeding with a forcible detainer action against Appellee Myrna Elizabeth de Luna Morales. Morales initiated the original lawsuit, alleging an illegal foreclosure sale of her property due to the bank's lack of authority, failure to provide proper notice, and denial of her right to cure the default. The district court consistently sided with Morales, denying the bank's motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and to dissolve the temporary injunction. Morales argues that the justice court lacks jurisdiction over the forcible detainer action due to complex title disputes and that the potential loss of her home constitutes irreparable harm.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionForeclosureForcible DetainerJustice Court JurisdictionTitle DisputeIrreparable InjuryAbuse of DiscretionMootness DoctrineAdvisory Opinion
References
45
Case No. 14-04-00888-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2007

Tello v. Bank One, N.A.

Pablo Tello appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Bank One, N.A. and Banc One Acceptance Corp. Tello had entered a vehicle lease agreement which was later assigned to the Bank One entities. After Tello allegedly defaulted on payments, Bank One sued for breach of contract. Tello counterclaimed for DTPA violations, common-law fraud, and breach of contract, asserting he was fraudulently induced into the lease by a salesperson due to his inability to read English. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, awarding damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding Tello had waived most of his appellate issues due to inadequate briefing and failure to properly present them in the trial court. A dissenting opinion argued that Bank One failed to sufficiently prove its damages.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractVehicle Lease AgreementDTPA ViolationsCommon-Law FraudAffirmative DefensesFraudulent InducementEquitable EstoppelAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Arguments
References
39
Case No. 14-11-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2013

Patrick O'Brien Murphy AKA O'Brien Murphy and Beverly Murphy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and HSBC Bank USA

Patrick and Beverly Murphy appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and HSBC Bank USA, stemming from a defaulted home mortgage and alleged oral refinancing agreement. The Murphys had defaulted on their loan and property taxes, leading to foreclosure proceedings and their subsequent lawsuit against the banks for breach of contract, fraud, and DTPA violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the fraud and DTPA claims, finding the Murphys were not DTPA consumers and the conditional refinancing promise was too indefinite for fraud. However, the court reversed the personal award of attorney's fees against the Murphys, ruling the loan's nonrecourse nature prevented personal liability, and remanded that issue.

Home Mortgage LitigationLoan DefaultForeclosure ProceedingsSummary Judgment AppealNonrecourse DebtAttorney Fee DisputeFraud AllegationsDTPA ClaimsConsumer LawContractual Interpretation
References
34
Case No. No. 08-13-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2015

Bank of New York F/K/A the Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS Inc. Asset Back Certificates, Series 2005-9 v. Chesapeake 34771 Land Trust

The Trust (Appellee) sued the Bank (Appellant), a financial institution, to quiet title to a house after a foreclosure sale. The Trust alleged title irregularities and sought to set aside the Bank's deed, leading to a no-answer default judgment against the Bank. On appeal, the Bank argued improper service of process. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that service did not strictly comply with Section 17.028 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates specific procedures for serving financial institutions. The court clarified that the term 'may' in the statute indicates a mandatory procedure to protect financial institutions from default judgments. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessFinancial InstitutionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRestricted AppealQuiet TitleForeclosureStatutory InterpretationSecretary of StateRegistered Agent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2002

Wil-Roye Investment Co. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

This case involves an appeal by Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments (Appellants) against Washington Mutual Bank, affirming a take-nothing judgment from a bench trial. Appellants suffered significant financial losses from a factoring business due to fraudulent invoices generated by Key Commercial Investments, Inc. (KCI) and Key Funding Group (KFG), who acted as their agents. Appellants sued Washington Mutual Bank (formerly MAB), alleging common law fraud, conspiracy, and negligence, specifically citing a negligent misrepresentation by MAB's president, John Grist, regarding a factoring client, Riley Drilling Company. The trial court found Grist's representation negligent but not fraudulent, and crucially, determined that Appellants' losses were primarily caused by the internal fraudulent scheme within their factoring business and their agents' negligence, not by the bank. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, addressing issues related to summary judgment denial, scheduling order modifications, adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment assertions, and the lack of a special relationship or justifiable reliance on MAB's statements.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesAgency RelationshipFifth Amendment PrivilegeSummary Judgment DenialScheduling Order ModificationSpecial Relationship DoctrineJustifiable RelianceCausation (Legal)
References
47
Case No. 08-03-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2004

Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments, Inc. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments, Inc. (Appellants) appealed a 'take nothing judgment' in favor of Washington Mutual Bank (Appellee). The case involved a factoring business relationship and allegations of negligent misrepresentation and fraud against Washington Mutual Bank, formerly Midland American Bank (MAB). The trial court found MAB negligently misrepresented information about a client, Riley Drilling, but determined that Appellants' losses were caused by a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the Holders and their companies, and the negligence of Appellants' agents, rather than by MAB. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding findings on justifiable reliance and causation. The appellate court also addressed and rejected Appellants' claims regarding the denial of summary judgment, the extension of scheduling deadlines, and adverse inferences drawn from Fifth Amendment assertions.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesFifth Amendment PrivilegeAdverse InferenceJustifiable RelianceCausationAgency RelationshipScheduling OrderContinuance
References
39
Case No. 04-13-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, U/w, F/B/O William David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/w, F/B/O Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/W/, F/B/O Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum Management Company N/K/A Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc., Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford, Rut

This case, heard by the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, addresses a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement (JOA) in McMullen County. Appellants, led by Bank of America as trustee, contested a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, concerning the alleged fraudulent inducement of a ratification agreement. The core issues involved the Bank's claims of waiver, ratification, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession, all stemming from the belief that the Baker Lease terminated due to a cessation of production. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of fraud and its intent to waive its claims, as well as the applicability of quasi-estoppel and adverse possession. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Oil and gas leaseJoint operating agreementMineral interestsLease terminationFraudulent inducementRatificationWaiverQuasi-estoppelAdverse possessionSummary judgment
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bank of America, N.A. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P.

This case concerns a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement in McMullen County, Texas. The Bank of America, as a lessor, sought rescission of a ratification agreement, alleging it was fraudulently induced to sign by Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, L.P. and the Rutherfords, who allegedly misrepresented the lease's status after a cessation of production. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, applying defenses such as ratification, waiver, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of the alleged fraud, the applicability of equitable defenses, and the Appellees' claims of adverse possession. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

Oil and Gas LeaseMineral RightsLease TerminationFraudulent InducementContract RatificationWaiver (Legal Doctrine)Quasi-EstoppelAdverse PossessionSummary Judgment ReversalUnjust Enrichment
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 1,809 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational