ZZ&Z Properties, LTD v. Sung Joon Jang and Sunmi A. Jang, 13-16-00043-CV

In an underlying suit, Saddle Brook West Apartments (the Complex) sued the Jangs; the Jangs prevailed through trial and appeals, obtaining a final judgment affirmed on appeal.
After mandate, the Jangs filed an abstract and sought execution but initially named ZZ&Z Properties, Ltd. (ZZ&Z) — the actual owner of the Complex property — as the judgment debtor instead of the Complex.
A second writ corrected the debtor to the Complex; the constable posted notices to sell real property owned by ZZ&Z, and ZZ&Z tendered $80,000 to satisfy the judgment and stopped the sale.
The constable refunded ZZ&Z $255.06 but the Jangs claimed additional amounts (per diem interest, fees, costs) remained due, and refused to release a lien on the property.
ZZ&Z sued to remove the lien and asserted a wrongful-execution claim; the Jangs counterclaimed for declaratory relief and fees.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment: it held the judgment satisfied and ordered lifting the lien, denied ZZ&Z’s wrongful-execution claim, and denied the Jangs’ request for additional relief. ZZ&Z appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ZZ&Z, an unnamed party in the underlying suit, may recover for wrongful execution after execution actions targeted its property	ZZ&Z: Because it was not a named party in the underlying suit and was not substituted under Tex. R. Civ. P. 28, the judgment did not run against it and execution against its property was wrongful	Jangs: ZZ&Z is estopped or waived the defense because ZZ&Z and the Complex represented they were the same entity in pleadings/discovery, misleading the Jangs into treating the Complex as the correct party	Court affirmed summary judgment for the Jangs; because ZZ&Z did not challenge the trial court’s alternative grounds (estoppel/waiver), the judgment is upheld

Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary-judgment movant’s burden explained)
Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (burden shifts to nonmovant when movant establishes right as a matter of law)
Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (defendant must disprove an element of plaintiff’s cause or establish an affirmative defense in summary judgment)
Lubbock Cnty. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2002) (appellate court may render the judgment the trial court should have rendered when both sides move for summary judgment)
Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (if appellant fails to challenge each ground supporting summary judgment, appellate court will affirm on unchallenged grounds)
Dickey v. Club Corp. of Am., 12 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (de novo review of summary judgments)
Dallas Cty. v. Gonzales, 183 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (appellate rules prohibit raising new issues for the first time in a reply brief)