Don A. Wade v. Household Finance Corp. III
06-15-00074-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 16, 2015Background
- In 2005 Don A. Wade (defendant) and his then-wife signed a promissory note and deed of trust for a home-equity loan; documentary exhibits conflict whether the mortgage described 3.46/34.69 acres (Wade's position) or 90 acres (plaintiff's claim).
- Household Finance Corp. III (HFC) pursued foreclosure and obtained a 2009 district-court order authorizing foreclosure; a 2014 substitute-trustee deed and foreclosure sale were executed purporting to convey 90 acres to HFC.
- Wade alleges his original deed/mortgage (showing 34.69 acres) was stolen/altered and that HFC filed an outdated 90‑acre description from county records, thereby claiming more land than the parties contracted to encumber.
- HFC sued for forcible detainer in county court and obtained a judgment (April 2015) awarding possession of the premises described by an exhibit (90 acres) and a writ of possession issued; Wade filed motions for new trial, requests for findings, and asserted fraud and laches.
- Wade contends (1) the county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to order possession of 90 acres because only ~34.69 acres were mortgaged, (2) HFC committed real-estate fraud/unjust enrichment by asserting rights to 90 acres, and (3) HFC is barred by laches for waiting ~5 years after its 2009 foreclosure order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HFC) | Defendant's Argument (Wade) | Held (trial-court result) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Subject-matter jurisdiction to foreclose/obtain possession of 90 acres | County court could adjudicate possession based on substitute trustee deed/foreclosure instruments and prior district-court foreclosure order | County court lacked jurisdiction over 90 acres because the mortgage/contract only encumbered ~34.69 acres; court cannot award more than parties' interest | County court entered judgment for plaintiff and awarded possession of the described premises (90 acres) |
| 2. Real-estate fraud (false property description filed) | HFC relied on publicly filed foreclosure/deed records and prior order; description in record supported its claim | HFC knowingly used an outdated/incorrect 90‑acre description to obtain possession of land it did not have a lien on — a fraud on the court | Trial court accepted plaintiff's evidence/exhibit and found for plaintiff (judgment for possession) |
| 3. Unjust enrichment (recovery of more property than contract) | Plaintiff entitled to possession based on foreclosure instruments and substitute trustee deed | Suing for 90 acres seeks recovery beyond the contractual lien (quasi-contractual unjust enrichment) and is barred by the deed/note terms | Trial court awarded possession to plaintiff despite appellant's unjust-enrichment argument |
| 4. Laches (5-year delay after 2009 order) | Delay was not a bar to enforcement of the foreclosure/right to possession | HFC unreasonably delayed asserting rights; Wade relied on inactivity and changed position, so laches bars relief | Trial court did not sustain Wade's laches argument and ruled for plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fort Worth v. Johnson, 388 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. 1964) (elements of laches require unreasonable delay and detrimental change of position)
- Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2000) (unjust enrichment characterized as quasi-contractual and analyzed where no express agreement governs relief)
- Rogers v. Ricane Enters., Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. 1989) (authority on equitable defenses including laches)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (trial court obligation to examine jurisdictional evidence and limits on adjudicating parties’ interests)
- Walston v. Lockhart, 62 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (standing requires a direct, personal stake and injury to justify suit)