Shipley v. UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS
331 S.W.3d 27
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Shipley appeals a judgment against him on a credit card debt in favor of Unifund CCR Partners.
- Shipley argues Unifund CCR Partners lacked standing because it did not own the debt and the court thus lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Citibank South Dakota, N.A. sold the account to Unifund Portfolio A, LLC, which assigned its rights to Unifund CCR Partners but retained title to the receivables.
- The assignment language states assigns only collection rights for receivables owned or acquired by Assignor, with Assignor retaining title and ownership.
- Evidence consisted of a business records affidavit insufficient to prove ownership or standing; the trial court sustained hearsay objections to parts of the affidavit.
- The court on rehearing held Unifund CCR Partners lacked standing and lacked jurisdiction, reversing and dismissing the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Unifund CCR Partners have standing to sue and thus subject-matter jurisdiction? | Shipley contends no ownership, no standing. | Unifund asserts assignment/collection rights suffice to pursue the claim. | Unifund CCR Partners lacked standing; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is a component of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.1998) (standing analyzed de novo on review)
- Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.1996) (standing arises from justiciable interest)
- Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001) (standing requires breach of party's legal right)
- Eaves v. Unifund CCR Partners, 301 S.W.3d 402 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009) (pleadings may establish standing; jurisdictional review)
- Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2008) (assignment to holder with title supports standing)
- Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc., 308 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2010) (ownership of debt affects standing)
- Cartwright v. MBank Corpus Christi, 865 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993) (note transferred to holder demonstrates ownership)
- University of Texas Med. Branch at Galveston v. Allan, 777 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (assignment and ownership principles in litigation)
- Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001) (assignment principles cited)