History
  • No items yet
midpage
542 S.W.3d 50
Tex. App.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Wells Fargo sued guarantor Gerald Godoy for a deficiency after Wells Fargo's predecessor foreclosed in 2011 and purchased the property for less than the loan balance; the suit was filed in 2015.
  • Godoy moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was time-barred by the Property Code's 2-year deficiency statute (Tex. Prop. Code §51.003(a)).
  • Wells Fargo moved for (partial) summary judgment asserting Godoy contractually waived any statute-of-limitations and other anti-deficiency defenses in the guaranty.
  • The guaranty contained broad waiver language: waiving “any and all rights or defenses,” including anti-deficiency laws and “any statute of limitations” subject to a savings clause making waivers effective only to the extent allowed by law or public policy.
  • Trial court denied Godoy’s summary judgment, granted Wells Fargo’s motions, and entered final judgment for the bank; Godoy appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether a general guaranty waiver of “any and all defenses” covers the 2‑year statute of limitations in Tex. Prop. Code §51.003(a) Moayedi and related authority permit waiver of all defenses under §51.003, so the guaranty’s broad language waives the 2‑year rule A statute‑of‑limitations waiver must be specific and time‑limited; a general, perpetual waiver is void as against public policy The court held the broad guaranty waiver includes the §51.003(a) two‑year limitations defense and thus Godoy waived that defense
Whether the public‑policy line of cases (prohibiting complete advance waivers of limitations) invalidates the guaranty waiver Waiver is enforceable under Moayedi and related appellate authority; at minimum §51.003 defenses may be waived Complete advance waiver of a limitations period violates long‑standing public policy (Simpson) and is void The majority declined to decide the facial public‑policy question because Godoy did not plead that affirmative defense under Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; it therefore affirmed enforcement of the waiver
Whether Godoy preserved the public‑policy challenge by pleading it or trying it Wells Fargo alleged the guaranty waived limitations in its petition; Godoy raised public‑policy argument in summary‑judgment response Godoy failed to affirmatively plead that the waiver is void, so he waived the defense The court held Godoy failed to plead the avoidance/affirmative‑defense required by Rule 94, so the public‑policy argument was waived for purposes of the appeal
Whether the court should assess alternative statutes (e.g., general 4‑year debt limitations) N/A (Wells Fargo relied on the guaranty waiver of the 2‑year rule) Godoy argued the 2‑year bar applies; did not conclusively establish the 4‑year bar in summary judgment evidence The court did not decide applicability/enforceability of the 4‑year limitations (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.004) because Godoy did not carry burden to establish it

Key Cases Cited

  • Moayedi v. Interstate 35/Chisam Road, L.P., 438 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2014) (general guaranty waivers that reference “any,” “each,” and “every” defense effect a broad waiver of §51.003 defenses)
  • PlainsCapital Bank v. Martin, 459 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2015) (referring to §51.003 offset as an affirmative defense)
  • Simpson v. McDonald, 179 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1944) (longstanding precedent that an agreement to completely waive a statute of limitations in advance is void as against public policy)
  • Phillips v. Phillips, 820 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. 1991) (exception to pleading rule: a party need not plead an affirmative defense that is apparent on the face of the petition and established as a matter of law)
  • Grace Interest, LLC v. Wallis State Bank, 431 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) (upholding waiver of §51.003 defenses and holding such waiver not void as against public policy)
  • LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Sleutel, 289 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2002) (treating waiver of §51.003(c) offset as permissible where statute does not prohibit waiver)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Godoy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Oct 31, 2017
Citations: 542 S.W.3d 50; NO. 14-16-00599-CV
Docket Number: NO. 14-16-00599-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Log In
    Godoy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 542 S.W.3d 50