James Rutherford v. 6353 Joint Venture, 14-16-00053-CV

Rutherford personally guaranteed a $675,000 promissory note executed by 6300 Interests and Quality Infusion; those entities defaulted. 6353 Joint Venture sued Rutherford on the guaranty.
6353 had indorsed the note to Texas Capital Bank “with recourse” and executed a collateral transfer; later indorsements returned the note (undated) to 6353 without recourse.
Rutherford moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing 6353 had assigned the note and therefore lacked a personal stake when suit was filed.
6353 moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it and awarded $390,000 principal and $39,000 attorney’s fees through trial (plus potential appellate fees).
On appeal, Rutherford raised three issues; the court addressed standing and whether 6353 proved entitlement to summary judgment. The court reversed and remanded for failure to prove the amount owed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (6353)	Defendant's Argument (Rutherford)	Held
Standing at time suit filed	6353 had standing because it remained liable on the note as indorser and thus could pursue the guaranty	6353 had assigned the promissory note to Texas Capital Bank and thus lacked standing when suit was filed	Held for 6353: its indorsement “with recourse” matured into an obligation when obligors defaulted, giving 6353 standing at filing; Issue overruled
Sufficiency of summary-judgment proof — amount owed	6353 established amount due and ownership and entitlement to judgment on guaranty	Rutherford pointed to inconsistent sworn affidavits showing different principal amounts and argued a fact issue exists on amount due	Held for Rutherford: 6353 failed to prove amount owed as a matter of law because its agent filed multiple inconsistent affidavits without adequate explanation; summary judgment reversed and case remanded

Tex. Ass’n. of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and requires a real controversy)
Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. 1996) (standing requires a personal stake; controversy must be real)
Martin v. Clinical Pathology Lab., Inc., 343 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (standing must exist when suit is filed)
Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2009) (traditional summary-judgment review is de novo)
MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1986) (plaintiff moving for summary judgment must conclusively prove all essential elements)
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) (nonmovant need not respond unless movant conclusively proves each element)
Wasserberg v. Flooring Servs. of Tex., LLC, 376 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (elements required to prevail on guaranty claim)
1001 McKinney Ltd. v. Credit Suisse First Bos. Mortg. Capital, 192 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (conclusory affidavit statements without supporting facts insufficient for summary judgment)