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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. 11-18-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

William R. Hickey appeals the denial of his motion to set aside a no-answer default judgment entered against him. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. filed a petition to foreclose on Hickey's manufactured home after he defaulted on a retail installment contract. Substituted service was granted and executed by posting citation on Hickey's gate after personal service attempts failed. Hickey's motion to set aside the default judgment, asserting improper service and a meritorious defense, was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that substituted service was properly accomplished and Hickey's failure to answer was due to conscious indifference, failing the first prong of the Craddock test.

Default JudgmentSubstituted ServiceMotion to Set AsideAppellate ReviewDue DiligenceService of ProcessCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseForeclosure
References
28
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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. 08-06-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. 21-0941
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2023

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC initiated an action to foreclose a mortgage on a property in Webster, New York, after defendants Eric L. Atanas and Kathleen M. Pink failed to appear. Plaintiff moved for a default judgment and foreclosure and sale. The Court granted the default judgment, finding that Plaintiff had satisfied all procedural requirements under the RPAPL. However, the request for attorney's fees was denied due to the lack of contemporaneous time records. The judgment of foreclosure and sale was also denied without prejudice, as Plaintiff failed to adequately substantiate the requested damages with reasonable certainty, and was granted leave to renew with proper documentation.

Mortgage ForeclosureDefault JudgmentAttorney's FeesReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDamagesSubstantiation of DamagesContemporaneous Time RecordsJudicial DiscretionMotion to Renew
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The debtor, Leonard W. Houston, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiff Ridgewood Savings Bank, holding a mortgage on the debtor's home, commenced an adversary proceeding to vacate the automatic stay to facilitate foreclosure. A default judgment was granted against the debtor for failure to appear, which he moved to set aside, citing excusable neglect due to an ankle injury. The case was remanded on appeal for further findings. The court found that while the debtor's failure to appear constituted excusable neglect, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as he lacked equity in the property and had not made mortgage payments or reimbursed the bank for taxes for an extended period, leading to a lack of adequate protection for the Bank. Consequently, the court denied the debtor's application to set aside the default judgment.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayDefault JudgmentForeclosureExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefenseAdequate ProtectionMortgage LienChapter 13Equity Cushion
References
29
Case No. 13-06-575-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2008

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2006

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

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
Showing 1-10 of 782 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