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
Apr 12, 1999

Capstead Mortgage Corp. v. Sun America Mortgage Corp.

Capstead Mortgage Corporation challenged a summary judgment ruling which denied its claims against Sun America Mortgage Corporation. Capstead had purchased mortgage loans from Sun America, including one where Kadeem Omari defaulted, leading Capstead to demand repurchase and subsequently foreclose on the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sun America based on the doctrine of election of remedies. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Capstead's action of bidding the entire balance at the foreclosure sale and taking title to the property constituted an election of remedies. Furthermore, the court found that the mortgage loan ceased to exist upon foreclosure, thus extinguishing Sun America's warranties and representations.

Summary JudgmentElection of RemediesMortgage LoanForeclosureBreach of ContractWarrantiesAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureReal Estate LawContractual Agreements
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2006

D.I.S., LLC v. Sagos

This case concerns an appeal by a mortgagee from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the mortgagor's petition to direct the mortgagee to accept a specific sum in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and issue a satisfaction of mortgage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the mortgagor's tender of payment of the entire mortgage principal plus interest, in response to the mortgagee's acceleration of debt, did not constitute a 'prepayment' within the meaning of the mortgage's prepayment clause. Consequently, the mortgagee was precluded from assessing a prepayment penalty as no such provision was specified in the mortgage. Additionally, the court declined to consider the mortgagee’s remaining contention regarding the acceleration clause because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief.

Mortgage LawPrepayment PenaltyMortgage Debt SatisfactionAcceleration of DebtRPAPL 1921Appellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County Supreme CourtContractual ProvisionsTender of Payment
References
7
Case No. 7053 (VLB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1992

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Spark Tarrytown, Inc.

District Judge Broderick's memorandum explains the decision to grant an ex-parte order for the appointment of a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure case initiated by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC). The judge justified the extraordinary remedy by citing the defendants' inability to be located, the imminent collection of rents, and a history of non-payment despite repeated requests. The decision emphasizes stringent due process requirements for ex-parte relief, referencing Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents on pre-deprivation notice. The accompanying order formally appoints Jerry Waxenberg as Receiver, detailing his comprehensive powers and duties for property management, rent collection, and compliance with legal requirements in Westchester County.

Ex-parteReceivershipMortgage ForeclosureDue ProcessProperty RightsNotice RequirementsDefaultRent CollectionProperty ManagementJudicial Order
References
6
Case No. 21-0941
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2023

Pnc Mortgage, a Division of Pnc Bank, N.A. Successor to National City Bank and National City Mortgage, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana v. John Howard and Amy Howard

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed a decision that PNC Mortgage's claim for foreclosure through equitable subrogation was time-barred. PNC, a refinance lender, failed to initiate foreclosure proceedings on its own lien within the statute of limitations after accelerating the Howards' note in 2009. The Court clarified that equitable subrogation provides an alternative remedy, substituting the original creditor's security interest, but does not create an additional claim with a separate accrual date. Therefore, the subrogation claim also accrued upon the acceleration of the refinanced loan, and PNC's failure to act within four years rendered it time-barred. This decision emphasizes that a refinance lender's negligence in preserving its own lien does not impact its entitlement to equitable subrogation, but the claim must still be brought within the statutory limitations period from the acceleration of the underlying note.

MortgageEquitable SubrogationStatute of LimitationsForeclosureReal Property LienTexas LawRefinanceDebt AccelerationAppellate ProcedureJudicial Precedent
References
24
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. 13-06-575-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2008

Pokorne Private Capital Group, LLC v. 21st Mortgage Corp. & Nella Investments, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting no-evidence motions for summary judgment in favor of 21st Mortgage Corporation and Nella Investments, Inc., and denying a cross-motion by Pokorne Private Capital Group, LLC. The dispute centers on the priority of conflicting security interests in a manufactured home located in Williamson County. Pokorne argued that its purchase-money security interest had priority once the home was declared real property. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that 21st Mortgage had a perfected security interest in the home, which was recorded chronologically before Pokorne's, and that Sedona's real property election filing was defective. The court also found that 21st Mortgage was entitled to self-help repossession as the senior lienholder.

manufactured homessecurity interestsinventory lienpurchase-money security interestsummary judgmentTexas lawreal propertypersonal propertyrepossessionUCC
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. National Mortgage Co.

Raymond Barnes appealed a trial court decision denying him workmen's compensation benefits for a back injury, arguing he was an employee of National Mortgage Company. The lower court determined Barnes was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed this ruling, citing factors such as Barnes supplying his own tools, flexible working hours, and the ability to work for other companies, which indicated an independent contractor status despite a 5% deduction for workmen's compensation. The court emphasized that the right to control the method of performance, rather than just supervision, is key. Barnes' claim that National Mortgage Company was estopped from denying coverage due to the deduction and a representative's statement was also rejected, as the trial judge's findings on the facts were supported by evidence.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusWorkmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipRight to ControlMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsRight of TerminationEstoppelTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. 08-06-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

21st Mortgage Corporation v. City of El Paso

This appeal arises from a tax delinquency suit initiated by the City of El Paso, which led to a default judgment against 21st Century Home Mortgage. 21st Century's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The appellate court considered three issues raised by 21st Century, primarily focusing on whether its failure to answer the original suit was due to mistake or accident, satisfying the Craddock test. The court found that the evidence contradicted 21st Century's claims of lack of knowledge regarding its status as a defendant, thus upholding the trial court's discretion in denying the motion. The remaining issues concerning good cause for a new trial and excessive damages were deemed waived due to inadequate briefing.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialTax DelinquencyAppellate ProcedureCraddock TestWaiver of IssuesAbuse of DiscretionTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate ProcedureConscious Indifference
References
15
Case No. 03-15-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2015

Clare Trevarthen v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

This appellate brief, filed by Appellee Nationstar Mortgage LLC, seeks to affirm the trial court's summary judgment in a case where Appellant Clare Trevarthen challenged the authority of Aurora Loan Services to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure. Nationstar argues that Aurora Loan Services had the authority to foreclose as the holder of the original note endorsed in blank, as the assignee of the Deed of Trust from MERS, and as the mortgage servicer. The brief also argues that Trevarthen failed to challenge all grounds for summary judgment. The case involves a residential rental property foreclosure from June 7, 2011, and subsequent servicing transfers.

ForeclosureNonjudicial ForeclosureMortgage ServicerDeed of TrustPromissory Note HolderSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTexas Property CodeMERSLoan Servicing Transfer
References
26
Case No. 03-14-00304-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2015

Mikael Judah and Laura Judah v. EMC Mortgage Corporation

Mikael and Laura Judah (Appellants) filed an Opposed Motion for Leave to File Notice in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas, against EMC Mortgage Corporation (Appellee). The motion seeks to introduce additional authority relevant to their appeal, specifically regarding the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). Appellants contend that MERS's operational model is contrary to long-standing Texas property law. They cite the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision in Montgomery County v. Merscorp, Inc., which found the MERS system at odds with historical property law theory. An amicus brief, filed by several law professors and the Harvard Law School Legal Services Center, supporting the Pennsylvania district court's findings against MERS, is also presented as pertinent additional authority.

Mortgage LawForeclosureMERSReal Property LawProperty RightsRecording ActsAppellate ProcedureSecured TransactionsElectronic RegistrationAmicus Curiae Brief
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,335 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