Comerica Bank v. Progressive Trade Enters., Inc., 544 S.W.3d 459

Progressive Trade Enterprises executed a promissory note on Aug. 22, 2008 (principal $132,371.83) signed by Poul Nielsen as president; no payments were made.
Sterling Bank (original lender) merged into Comerica Bank in 2011; Comerica claims it acquired Sterling's loans and the Note.
At bench trial Comerica offered a copy of the Note; its custodian testified Comerica held the original in Michigan but did not produce it; defendants introduced identical copies of the Note and Nielsen admitted his signature.
After Comerica rested without reoffering its copy, defendants moved for judgment contending Comerica failed to prove ownership because it did not produce the original. The trial court granted the motion and rendered a take‑nothing judgment.
On appeal Comerica argued (1) it proved entitlement to recover on the Note and (2) it proved Nielsen’s liability under guaranty agreements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Comerica proved it was owner/holder of the Note and thus entitled to recover from Progressive	Comerica: merger evidence + custodian testimony + defendants’ identical copies and Nielsen’s signature establish ownership/holder status and amount due	Progressive: absence of original Note undermines proof of ownership/holder status and admissibility of Comerica’s copy	Held for Comerica — evidence (custodian testimony, merger docs, defendants’ identical copies, Nielsen’s admission) legally sufficient to prove ownership/holder and entitlement to recover on the Note; reversed and remanded on that portion
Whether Comerica proved Nielsen’s liability under guaranty agreements for the 2008 Note	Comerica: prior guaranties (2002, earlier) contain broad language covering future obligations, so Nielsen guaranteed obligations including the 2008 Note	Nielsen: the 2002 guaranty contains a carve‑out excluding guaranty of subsequent obligations if borrower meets lender’s creditworthiness standard; evidence suggested Progressive may have met that standard and no 2008 guaranty was executed	Held for Nielsen — Comerica failed to conclusively prove guaranty applied to the 2008 Note; trial court’s judgment as to guaranty claim affirmed

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency review standards)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (plaintiff must conclusively prove elements when attacking legal sufficiency)
Dorsett v. Hispanic Housing & Educ. Corp., 389 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (elements to recover on a promissory note)
Life Ins. Co. of Va. v. Gar‑Dal, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1978) (copy of note + sworn testimony proving ownership/possession can establish holder status absent contrary evidence)
Zarges v. Bevan, 652 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1983) (admissibility and proof of negotiable instruments)
Blankenship v. Robins, 899 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (signature admitted, maker established)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (judgment may be affirmed on any legal theory supported by the evidence)