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

Noteholder (Fannie Mae) foreclosed on Timbers Apartments after borrower Persimmon Ridge Partners EO, LP defaulted on the loan; liens filed by Pavement Services, Morrison Supply, and Stowe’s were not released within 30 days; loan documents included a Deed of Trust and a Key Principals Agreement imposing personal liability for defaults; the Deed of Trust defines Transfer to include creation of any lien/encumbrance; Pavement Services’ lien remained unremedied within 30 days and foreclosed encumbered title; court granted partial summary judgment for full deficiency plus fees; defendant-appellants argued unperfected liens could not trigger default; court held liens/encumbrances created a Transfer regardless of perfection and were not remedied timely; final judgment awarded deficiency of $1,933,046.68 plus fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did unperfected mechanic's liens constitute a Transfer under the Deed of Trust?	Persimmon Ridge argued liens must be perfected to transfer.	Vandenburgs argued perfection was required for lien transfers.	Yes; unperfected liens transferred and triggered default.
Does the Deed of Trust require perfection/attachment for an encumbrance to be a Transfer?	Provisions exempt no imperfection; encumbrance can be a Transfer.	Perfection/attachment required for encumbrances to transfer.	Perfection not required; creation/existence suffices.
Was there timely remedy of liens within 30 days to avoid default?	Remedied within 30 days; liens released timely.	Some liens not released within 30 days; Pavement Services not remedied.	Liens were not remedied within 30 days; default triggered.
Is the Pavement Services lien alone sufficient to establish recourse liability?	Pavement Services lien not released; supports default.	All liens must be considered collectively; some later released.	Pavement Services lien alone suffices to trigger default.
Should the court apply contract interpretation rules to enforce loan provisions as written?	Loan language unambiguous; supports full-recourse.	Contract cannot render encumbrances meaningless.	Contract language unambiguous; grants full-recourse liability.

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003) (contract interpretation; give effect to all terms)
Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1989) (summary judgment standard; multiple grounds)
Davison, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (contract interpretation; harmony of writings)
FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (standard of review; de novo review)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (multiple independent grounds; uphold judgment)
Gibbs v. Gen. Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. 1970) (contract construction; plain meaning governs)
Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1994) (standard of review; summary judgment)
Pineridge Associates, L.P. v. Ridgepine, LLC, 337 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011) (Transfer/Event of Default; lien encumbrances not released within 30 days)
Heller Fin., Inc. v. Lee, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15183 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (full recourse triggered by lien filings)
Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (summary judgment standards; affirms if unchallenged ground)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (contract interpretation; honor plain terms)