Bank of New York Mellon v. Guzman, Carmen and Jose, 390 S.W.3d 593

Bank of New York Mellon appeals an interlocutory order denying its motion for summary judgment in a dispute with Carmen and Jose Guzman over a 2003 mortgage in Dallas County.
Guzmans obtained a mortgage from AWL; sign promissory note to AWL and deed of trust naming MERS as beneficiary; MERS acts as lender’s nominee with power to foreclose.
Bank foreclosed in May 2009; Guzmans sued for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and declaratory relief, alleging lack of notice, default/acceleration communications, and improper standing.
Bank moved for summary judgment on notices, standing, and breach; Guzmans cross-moved for summary judgment on wrongful foreclosure and declaratory relief.
Trial court denied both motions; parties sought agreed interlocutory appeal under Texas law; the court questioned jurisdiction, and this court ultimately dismissed for want of jurisdiction because no substantive ruling on controlling issues was made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction over the agreed interlocutory appeal	Bank: questions of law were controlling and fully presented below.	Guzmans: trial court did not rule on the controlling legal questions, so appellate jurisdiction is limited.	No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed for lack of a substantive ruling on the controlling legal questions.
Whether MERS had standing to foreclose and to foreclose as trustee	Bank: MERS, as nominee for the original lender and successors, had authority to foreclose.	Guzmans: MERS did not possess proper standing or authority to foreclose or assign the note.	Not addressed as substantive ruling was lacking; court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the Bank was a holder entitled to enforce the note and whether the transfer affected enforceability	Bank: the note could be enforced through the deed of trust and MERS’s role; assignment issues do not defeat foreclosure.	Guzmans: failure to produce original note or valid assignment undermines enforceability and standing.	Not decided due to jurisdictional dismissal.
Whether proper notices under the property code and deed of trust were provided	Bank: all required notices were provided; Guzmans were in possession continuously.	Guzmans: notices of default, acceleration, and foreclosure were not properly provided.	Not addressed on the merits; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Gulley v. State Farm Lloyds, 350 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (agreed interlocutory appeal requires substantive ruling on controlling legal issue)
State Fair of Texas v. Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc., 299 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (absence of trial court ruling on controlling issue limits interlocutory jurisdiction)
Amaya v. State Farm Lloyds, 372 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (section 51.014(d) cannot be used to obtain advisory ruling when trial court does not rule on controlling issue)