Theresa Washington-Jarmon v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 513 S.W.3d 103

Theresa Washington-Jarmon and her husband, Shelley Jarmon, owned a homestead; Shelley (age 66) obtained a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (reverse mortgage) in 2009 to pay off an existing home-equity loan. Theresa was under 62 and ineligible to be a reverse-mortgage "borrower."
Loan documents: the loan application, loan agreement, and adjustable-rate note listed only Shelley as "Borrower" and made the debt due upon the death of "All Borrowers." The deed of trust named both spouses as trustors and included the parenthetical "("Borrower")" near both signatures.
Theresa signed a Non-Borrower Spouse Ownership Interest Certification acknowledging she was a non-borrowing spouse and that the home might need to be sold to repay the loan if her husband predeceased her; she also conveyed her interest in the property to Shelley via warranty deed.
After Shelley died in December 2010, OneWest (assignee of the loan) contacted the estate for payment and later initiated foreclosure proceedings; Theresa sued alleging breach of contract and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA).
The trial court granted OneWest’s second summary-judgment motion and dismissed Theresa’s claims with prejudice; Theresa appealed challenging the summary judgment and the trial court’s refusal to judicially notice federal law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Theresa is a "Borrower" under the reverse mortgage (affecting whether lender could accelerate/foreclose after only husband’s death)	Deed of trust lists both spouses as "Borrower," so Theresa is a borrower and debt is not due until all borrowers die	All loan documents construed together (and the note controls) show only Shelley is borrower; deed’s "borrower" labels are shorthand/for joinder and to satisfy spousal-joinder requirements	Theresa is not a borrower as a matter of law; note controls over deed of trust; summary judgment for OneWest affirmed
Whether OneWest misrepresented amount due (TDCA) by claiming $412,500 was owed	Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale and a later statement support that OneWest represented an amount greater than actual balance (alleged $412,500)	The notice referenced $412,500 only as the maximum amount secured by the deed (not the payoff); no evidence OneWest demanded that sum to satisfy the debt	No-evidence summary judgment proper: plaintiff failed to raise fact issue that OneWest misrepresented the amount owed

Jones v. Kelley, 614 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. 1981) (instruments executed together for same transaction are construed as one)
Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1989) (appellate review: affirm summary judgment if any asserted ground is meritorious)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (standards for traditional summary judgment and de novo review)
Fin. Freedom Senior Funding Corp. v. Horrocks, 294 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (note and deed of trust construed together; note defines debt)
Coastal Plains Dev. Corp. v. Micrea, 572 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. 1978) (substance of parties’ arrangement controls over contract labels)
Pentico v. Mad–Wayler, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998) (conflicting terms in note and deed: note controls)