Rebecca v. Savoy and Theresa Savoy v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, 557 S.W.3d 825

In 2005 Rebecca Savoy (borrower) and Theresa Savoy (cosignor) obtained a $15,000 student loan from JPMorgan Chase; disclosure and credit-agreement documents set repayment terms and interest.
The loan was later pooled and, according to the Trust, assigned through intermediaries to National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3.
In April 2016 the Trust sued the Savoys for breach of the loan agreement and guaranty, seeking $20,492.05 plus interest and costs.
At a bench trial the Trust offered no live witnesses but submitted a subservicer’s affidavit (TSI) and seven documentary exhibits (origination docs, pool/assignment docs, and repayment-history reports).
The trial court admitted the exhibits under the business-records hearsay exception and awarded judgment for the Trust for $20,492.05.
On appeal the court affirmed admissibility and standing, found insufficient evidence of valid acceleration, and suggested a remittitur reducing damages to $15,894.70 unless the Trust accepts remittitur or faces a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Savoy)	Defendant's Argument (Trust)	Held
Admissibility of exhibits under Rule 803(6) / Rule 902(10)	Documents (pool supplement, schedule, deposit & sale, repayment reports) are hearsay, untrustworthy, and not properly authenticated	Holiday’s TSI affidavit established custodian status, regular practice, and compliance with 803(6) and 902(10)(B); documents incorporated into Trust records	Admissibility affirmed; affidavit satisfied business-records and self-authentication requirements
Legal & factual sufficiency of evidence (contract, assignment, interest, acceleration, damages)	Insufficient proof of a valid loan contract, assignment to Trust, correct interest calculations, and the Trust did not validly accelerate maturity	Credit Agreement + Disclosure Statement prove contract and interest; pool supplement, schedule, and deposit-and-sale show assignment; no proof required of detailed monthly math	Court held there was sufficient evidence of contract, assignment, and interest but insufficient evidence Trust validly accelerated the loan; damages reduced to sum of missed installments ($15,894.70) via suggested remittitur
Standing / whether TERI paid loan	Last ledger entry (balance $0) shows TERI, the guarantor, assumed and paid the debt, so Trust lacks standing	Loan activity and payment-history entries show charge-off, not payment by TERI; no evidence TERI paid	Standing affirmed; borrowers failed to prove TERI paid the loan

Simien v. Unifund CCR Partners, 321 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (standards for business-records admissibility and third‑party records)
Choice! Power, L.P. v. Feeley, 501 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (bench-trial findings and legal-sufficiency standard)
Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Pena, 442 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. 2014) (appellate review when appellant did not bear burden of proof)
Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2000) (instruments pertaining to same transaction may be read together)
Ogden v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass’n, 640 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. 1982) (requirement of notice before acceleration)
Williamson v. Dunlap, 693 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. 1985) (demand for past‑due installments required before acceleration)
ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010) (remittitur appropriate when lesser ascertainable damages are supported)
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (court of appeals may suggest remittitur when part of verdict lacks evidentiary support)
West v. Triple B Servs., LLP, 264 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (elements of breach‑of‑contract claim)
Williams v. Unifund CCR Partners, 264 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (certainty required for enforceable contract and relevance of incorporated documents)