James F. Roth v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., 439 S.W.3d 508

JPMorgan Chase sued James F. Roth on two business promissory notes (an installment loan and a business line of credit) alleging default after demand for payment.
The Bank moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit from its Managed Assets Officer (Joseph Lounds) attaching copies of the signed notes, balances, payment histories, and an attorney affidavit for fees.
Roth filed a verified answer asserting general and sworn denials plus seven affirmative defenses; he did not file verified denials of executing the instruments or a detailed account of any payments as required by Rule 95.
Roth objected to the Bank’s affidavits as insufficient (lack of privity/standing, lack of personal knowledge, hearsay, legal conclusions, interested witness) and submitted a controverting affidavit claiming he continued to make payments and disputed some charges but provided no detailed payment account.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, including attorney’s fees; Roth appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence to support summary judgment and (2) inadequate foundation for attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roth)	Defendant's Argument (Bank)	Held
Whether Bank proved elements for recovery on promissory notes	Lounds’ affidavit and attachments are inadequate: no privity/standing, lack personal knowledge, hearsay, legal conclusions, interested witness	Notes, signatures, ownership, default, demand, and balances are shown by affidavit and attachments; Roth failed to make verified denials or plead payment/offsets properly	Court affirmed: Roth failed to file required verified denials and failed to plead/payment accounting, waiving defenses; summary judgment proper
Whether attorney’s fees award had adequate evidentiary support	Vincent’s affidavit is conclusory, opinion evidence of interested witness lacking foundation for reasonableness	Attorney affidavit establishes usual/customary fees and triggers statutory presumption of reasonableness; no controverting evidence from Roth	Court affirmed: Vincent’s affidavit sufficient; Roth submitted no controverting evidence to rebut presumption

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (de novo review of summary judgment standards)
Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment burden rules)
Rockwall Commons Assocs., Ltd. v. MRC Mortg. Grantor Trust I, 331 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (elements required to recover on promissory note)
Bluebonnet Fin. Assets v. Miller, 324 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (failure to file verified denials results in instruments being treated as proved)
F-Star Socorro, L.P. v. City of El Paso, 281 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008) (payment and offsets are affirmative defenses under Rules 94–95)
Velasquez v. Waste Connections, Inc., 169 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (objections to summary judgment evidence must be ruled on or are waived)
Haden v. David J. Sacks, P.C., 332 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (attorney affidavit can support fee award; statutory presumption of reasonableness)
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1991) (fees must be supported as reasonable and necessary)