Mercedes Mosby v. Post Oak Bank, 401 S.W.3d 183

Bank holds a deed-of-trust lien on the disputed property (Ta Tinmore/Tinmore) recorded April 17, 2007 in Harris County.
Execution of Morrell Judgment led to a February 3, 2009 execution sale at which Mosby bid $4,000 and obtained an Execution Deed.
Foreclosure later occurred on June 2, 2009, leading to the Bank obtaining a Trustee’s Deed and asserting its superior lien against Mosby’s claim.
Bank sued Mosby to remove a cloud on title created by the Execution Deed; Mosby counterclaimed for trespass to try title claiming title via the Execution Deed.
Trial court granted Bank summary judgment, ruling the Execution Deed created a cloud and Mosby’s claims failed; Mosby appealed.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding Mosby did not obtain title free of the Bank’s lien and that notice and equity requirements did not defeat the Bank’s foreclosure rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §5.004 confer absolute title to Mosby?	Mosby—section 5.004(a) transfers absolute title.	Bank—section 5.004(a) does not affect its rights as lienholder.	No; §5.004(a) does not vest Mosby with title.
Was Mosby entitled to notice of foreclosure under the deed of trust and statute?	Mosby claims entitlement to notice under the deed and 51.002.	Bank complied with 51.002; no statutory notice to Mosby required.	No; equity did not require notice beyond statutory compliance.
Does Mosby hold title via a regular chain of conveyances to the sovereign?	Execution Deed creates chain back to sovereign.	Chain does not go to sovereign; Execution Deed conveyed Tinmore’s interest only.	No title via sovereign-origin chain.
Did the Bank wrongfully extend the note and deed-of-trust lien to avoid foreclosure?	Bank improperly extended the note.	Paragraph 21 governs transfers, not foreclosure; no wrongful extension.	No merit; no fact issue.

M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (summary-judgment standard on movants)
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (de novo review for summary judgment; genuine issues)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (standard for genuine fact issues in summary judgment)
FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (affirming summary judgment on any meritorious ground)
Lawson v. Gibbs, 591 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979) (equitable notice limits in foreclosures)
Woodside Assur., Inc. v. N.K. Resources, Inc., 175 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (presumption of lien payment not applicable to these facts)