Raul Martinez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-6 Homeward Residential, Inc. And Juanita Strickland
03-14-00721-CV
| Tex. App. | May 8, 2015Background
- In December 2002 Raul Martinez obtained a $142,000 Texas home-equity loan from Ameriquest, secured by a recorded Deed of Trust on his Austin property. Ameriquest later assigned the loan to Deutsche Bank; servicing transferred among several servicers ending with Homeward and then Ocwen.
- Martinez executed three forbearance agreements (2006 x2; 2008) while various servicers were handling the loan; each agreement acknowledged the loan’s validity and released claims.
- Martinez defaulted, received notices of acceleration/foreclosure, and the property was sold in a substitute trustee foreclosure in November 2012 to Deutsche Bank.
- Martinez filed suit in April 2013 challenging the validity/enforceability of the home-equity lien, alleging Ameriquest was not a licensed Texas regulated lender at origination and therefore the lien was void.
- Trial court granted appellees’ (Deutsche Bank & Homeward) traditional and no‑evidence motions for summary judgment and denied Martinez’s cross‑motions; Martinez appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment properly granted when trial court did not specify grounds? | Martinez contends statute‑of‑limitations defense fails because lien is void. | Appellees argue Martinez failed to challenge all possible grounds supporting summary judgment; unchallenged grounds warrant affirmance. | Affirmed: appellant must attack all grounds; failure to do so supports affirmance. |
| Did Martinez raise a fact issue that Ameriquest was not licensed at origination? | Martinez relies on a 2013 certified OCCC statement (showing license addresses) to contend the Deed of Trust address was not a licensed location in 2002. | Appellees say Martinez did not respond to their no‑evidence MSJ; the 2013 statement is legally insufficient and appellees’ 2014 OCCC statement shows the license covered the approximate address in 2002. | Held for defendants: Martinez failed to raise more than a scintilla; evidence shows Ameriquest was licensed at origination. |
| If Ameriquest was unlicensed, is the lien void or voidable and does the statute of limitations apply? | Martinez asserts an unlicensed origination makes the lien void so limitations does not bar his challenge. | Appellees argue Section 50(a)(6) contains a cure provision making constitutional defects in home‑equity loans voidable (not void); the residual 4‑year limitations applies and Martinez’s suit (filed >6 years after closing) is time‑barred. | Held for defendants: home‑equity defects are voidable with right to cure; claim accrued at loan closing and is barred by the 4‑year residual limitations. |
| Did Martinez provide notice (or otherwise preserve) a cure claim before suit? | Martinez did not show he notified lender of defect. | Appellees point to lack of notice and Martinez’s later forbearance agreements that ratified the loan. | Held: no evidence of borrower notice; forbearance agreements support ratification — supports summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merriman v. XTO Energy, 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment and requirement to attack all grounds when trial court’s order is nonspecific)
- Boerjan v. Rodriguez, 436 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2014) (no‑evidence motion burdens and standards)
- Doody v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 49 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. 2001) (home‑equity amendment cure provision applies and lenders have opportunity to cure defects)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (more‑than‑scintilla evidentiary threshold explained)
- In re Estate of Hardesty, 449 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (actions challenging constitutional home‑equity origination defects accrue at loan closing)
- Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 439 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (home‑equity defects are voidable; limitations and accrual at closing)
- Williams v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., 407 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (pre‑2003 cure provision applies to lender obligations at origination; lien is voidable)