Persimmon Ridge Partners EO, L.P., Russ Vandenburg, and Martha Vandenburg v. Fannie Mae, 07-15-00135-CV

Fannie Mae held a $7,212,000 note secured by a deed of trust on an Amarillo apartment complex owned by Persimmon Ridge Partners (PRP); the loan limited recourse to the collateral sale but triggered personal liability on certain "Transfers."
The Vandenburgs signed a key-principals agreement agreeing to pay any amounts for which PRP became personally liable under the note.
In 2010 PRP contracted for paving; Pavement Services (a subcontractor) performed work spanning late June and early July 2010 and later filed a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien claiming unpaid amounts.
After a 2011 fire and PRP’s payment default, Fannie Mae foreclosed in April 2012, purchased the property, and sought a deficiency of about $1.93 million.
Fannie Mae sued PRP and the Vandenburgs, alleging the subcontractor liens constituted a "Transfer" under the loan documents that triggered personal liability; the trial court granted summary judgment for Fannie Mae.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pavement Services’ mechanic’s lien satisfied Texas Property Code requirements and thus constituted a "Transfer" under the loan documents, triggering PRP and guarantors’ personal liability	Fannie Mae: the lien affidavit and notice met statutory requirements; the lien attached and (not being bonded off or released) was a Transfer that triggered liability under the loan documents	PRP/Vandenburgs: the lien was invalid/imperfect because the affidavit failed to state all months work was performed and the notice was untimely for June work, so no Transfer occurred	The court held the affidavit and notice met the statute as to July 2010; the lien attached; this constituted a Transfer triggering personal liability.

Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment de novo)
Rhône-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) (plaintiff moving for summary judgment must conclusively prove each element)
Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (when parties file cross-motions, appellate court considers evidence supporting both and renders the judgment the trial court should have)
Lee v. Martin Marietta Materials Sw., Ltd., 141 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (elements required to recover on a guaranty)
Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (application of statutory notice timing for mechanic’s lien claims)