Anyanka v. Capital Fund Reit LLC
3:24-cv-02267
| N.D. Tex. | Dec 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Celestine and Veronica Anyanka filed suit in Texas state court, seeking to stop foreclosure on property subject to a loan.
- The loan in question was for $352,000, designated expressly for business and commercial (not personal) purposes. The property was agreed not to be used as the borrowers’ residence.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of Texas Property Code §§ 51.002, 51.002(b)(3), and the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as well as breach of contract, and sought injunctive relief.
- Defendant (Capital Fund REIT, LLC) removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that the loan was strictly commercial and that required notices were sent.
- Plaintiffs failed to respond to the summary judgment motion, and the court considered the Defendant's evidence undisputed.
- Plaintiff Celestine Anyanka filed for bankruptcy, but the court found this did not stay or bar the lawsuit, as all claims were prosecuted by the debtor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Texas Prop. Code § 51.002(d) | Capital Fund failed to give required foreclosure/acceleration notice. | Statute only applies to loans for residential, not commercial property. Notices were properly sent. | Statute inapplicable; no violation. |
| Applicability of TILA/§ 2605 | Defendant failed to send periodic statements as required by TILA. | TILA applies only to consumer (personal) loans; this was a business/commercial loan. | TILA inapplicable; claim dismissed. |
| Breach of Contract—Notice | Defendant breached by not sending proper foreclosure/acceleration notices. | All required notices were sent per deed of trust and applicable law; no evidence to support claim. | No breach shown; claim dismissed. |
| Breach of Contract—Accounting | Defendant failed to properly account for/apply payments under agreement. | Loan documents don’t create such a duty; Plaintiffs present no evidence of breach or damages. | No evidence of breach or duty; claim dismissed. |
| Injunctive Relief | Requested to enjoin foreclosure based on substantive claims. | Substantive claims fail, so no basis exists for injunctive relief. | Injunctive relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard; movant may show absence of evidence supporting nonmovant’s case)
- Crowe v. Henry, 115 F.3d 294 (summary judgment facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882 (Texas breach of contract elements)
- Riviere v. Banner Chevrolet, Inc., 184 F.3d 457 (TILA only covers consumer—not business—transactions)
- Robinson v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 306 F. App’x 854 (notice requirements under Texas foreclosure law apply only to debtors)