Cooper v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP
325 S.W.3d 766
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff Cooper sued to enjoin foreclosure of his Plano, Texas home and asserted multiple contract and statutory claims.
- Federal court remanded remaining state-law claims after dismissing some under the Truth in Lending Act for limitations.
- Litton Loan Servicing and JP Morgan Chase moved for no-evidence and traditional summary judgment on remnant claims.
- Cooper responded June 10, 2008 with a declaration and attached documents; response was the only written opposition.
- Trial court granted defenses’ objections to untimely response and granted both no-evidence and traditional motions, dismissing with prejudice.
- Appeal followed the final summary judgment approving the dismissal against Cooper.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the judgment dispose of claims not raised in the motions? | Cooper argued some claims (concealment, fraud by nondisclosure, improper acceleration, FCPA) were not addressed. | Litton/Chase contend all applicable claims were addressed; FCPA was dismissed in federal court; theories tied to good-faith duty were covered. | No; judgment dispositive only of claims addressed in motions; first issue resolved against Cooper. |
| Was Cooper's summary judgment response timely under Rule 5 mailbox rule? | Cooper asserts timely filing under mailbox rule. | Record shows untimely response; no proof of timely service or filing; no leave to file late. | Held in favor of appellees; response untimely and not properly before court. |
| Did the trial court err in not addressing/ ruling on Cooper's motions for new trial? | Cooper sought relief for the court’s failure to rule on new-trial motions. | Motions for new trial were untimely; mailbox-rule relief not shown. | Held against Cooper; late motions for new trial could not be considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.2001) (summary judgment cannot dispose of claims not addressed in the motion)
- Kalyanaram v. Univ. of Tex. System, 230 S.W.3d 921 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007) (no-evidence MSJ requires timely response; failure supports MSJ)
- Landers v. State Farm Lloyds, 257 S.W.3d 740 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (mailbox rule applies to MSJ responses)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (no-evidence and traditional MSJ distinctions)
- Jackson v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 68 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998) (no-evidence MSJ review framework)
- Brittingham v. Ayala, 995 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999) (injunctions are equitable remedies, not standalone claims)