Janos Farkas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. And Brice, Vander Linden & Wernick, P.C., N/K/A Buckley Madole, P.C., 03-14-00716-CV

Background

In 2007 Farkas obtained a home-equity line from Wells Fargo secured by a deed of trust on his Austin homestead; Wells Fargo identified as lender on the deed.
In 2011 the law firm Brice (counsel for Wells Fargo) sent default and acceleration notices to Farkas; communications referenced “Wells Fargo Home Equity,” an alleged incorrect loan number, and threatened foreclosure.
Farkas disputed the debt and requested validation and documentation of certain charges (including taxes); he later filed a separate civil suit (July 2013) alleging constitutional and statutory violations based on the foreclosure-related letters.
Wells Fargo and Brice moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment; Farkas objected to portions of Wells Fargo’s summary-judgment affidavits and filed his own summary-judgment motion.
The trial court overruled Farkas’s evidentiary objections, granted Wells Fargo’s and Brice’s summary-judgment motions, denied Farkas’s motion, and Farkas appealed. Wells Fargo nonsuited the underlying foreclosure before the summary-judgment order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Trial court overruling objections to three affidavits	Dolan, Hooda, Foster affidavits contain inadmissible hearsay, lack personal knowledge, and are inconsistent	Affiants are qualified custodians with personal knowledge; statements are admissible business-record / lay-affidavit bases; alleged inconsistencies are date/type differences and immaterial	Overruled — affidavits admissible; appellant failed to preserve/sufficiently brief objections and showed no reversible harm
2. Claim under Texas Const. art. XVI §50(a)(6)	Notices and alleged defects in foreclosure notices/communications violated §50(a)(6) and required remedies (e.g., forfeiture)	§50(a)(6) governs loan document terms required to permit foreclosure; it does not regulate foreclosure notices; nonsuit of foreclosure moots any claim to block foreclosure	Affirmed — plaintiff did not plead a cognizable §50(a)(6) claim based on notices; claims moot after nonsuit
3. Texas Debt Collection Practices Act (Tex. Fin. Code §§392.301, .304) — damages & injunctive relief	Letters threatened non-judicial foreclosure, misidentified lender, and misrepresented amounts; Farkas suffered mental anguish and incurred costs	No evidence of compensable damages causally linked to the alleged statutory violations; injunctive relief not warranted because foreclosure nonsuited and no imminent harm	Affirmed — no-evidence proof of damages absent; injunction fails for lack of imminent harm
4. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §12.002 claim (fraudulent court record / lien)	Defendants presented fraudulent documents and intended to cause injury	No evidence on essential elements (knowledge a document was fraudulent; intent)	Affirmed — no-evidence summary judgment proper; plaintiff failed to present evidence of knowledge/intent
5. Denial of Farkas’s summary-judgment motion	Plaintiff argued he was entitled to judgment on his claims	Defendants established entitlement to summary judgment under traditional or no-evidence grounds	Affirmed — cross-motions resolved against Farkas; he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (attorney immunity protects actions within representation scope)
Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servs., L.L.C., 497 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. 2016) (§50(a)(6) applies to loan terms permitting foreclosure and not to general foreclosure communications)
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (definition of "more than a scintilla" for no-evidence summary judgment)