Antonio Caballero v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-19-01054-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 17, 2021; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Antonio Caballero appealed a summary judgment granted to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (Wilmington) by the 14th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas, regarding a breach of contract related to a deed of trust on his property at 14105 Rocksprings Court. Caballero's initial lawsuit in 2017 sought to prevent foreclosure and included claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of the deed of trust, and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, among others. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against the foreclosure but later granted summary judgment in favor of Wilmington and Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, a decision that was upheld on appeal.

In a second suit filed on March 27, 2019, Caballero alleged that Wilmington failed to provide required notices before proceeding with foreclosure, which he claimed was a breach of contract. Wilmington responded by asserting that Caballero's claim was barred by res judicata, citing the earlier case. During the summary judgment hearing, Judge Moye questioned why the claims in the 2019 suit were not addressed in the prior case. Ultimately, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, dismissing Caballero's claim against Wilmington based on the res judicata doctrine.

Caballero's Counsel argues that the foreclosure issue involves a different individual, specifically Wilmington Funding as trustee for another entity, leading to confusion. Wilmington's Counsel contends that the current Plaintiff is a successor-in-interest, supported by attached assignments. Caballero's Counsel disputes the validity of these assignments, stating they are not recorded in the correct order and that the notice of foreclosure utilized a different Defendant than in the initial case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, which led Caballero to appeal.

On appeal, Caballero claims the Trial Court erred by granting the Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment despite sufficient evidence supporting his claims. The standard of review for the appellate court is de novo, applicable to both traditional and no-evidence summary judgments. If the trial court's order does not specify the grounds for its decision, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories presented are meritorious.

The discussion includes the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents the relitigation of claims that have been finally adjudicated, as well as related claims that could have been raised in the previous suit. The elements of res judicata require a prior final judgment on the merits, identity of parties, and a second action based on the same claims raised or that could have been raised in the first action. The court will evaluate whether these elements apply to the present case.

A prior final judgment on the merits was established in the first suit involving Wilmington and Caballero, which was resolved by a competent court. Caballero did not dispute Wilmington's assertion regarding the merits of the first suit, where summary judgment was granted against him. The claim for breach of the deed of trust was classified as a breach of contract, requiring proof of a valid contract, performance by Caballero, a breach by the defendant, and resulting damages. The appellees successfully argued that Caballero failed to provide evidence of his performance or any breach by them, particularly concerning the definition of 'Lender' and the status of Rushmore as a successor or assignee. Caballero only presented a declaration without evidence disproving Rushmore's authority. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no breach of the deed of trust by the appellees, affirming the trial court's summary judgment.

Additionally, Wilmington asserted that the parties involved in both suits were the same or in privity. Caballero claimed the first suit involved a different trust managed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, but this was not supported by the evidence. The record confirmed that the parties and documents were identical and referred to the same underlying deed of trust. Therefore, the appeal met the second element required for res judicata, indicating the parties were the same in both cases. Overall, the prior judgment was final and all essential elements of res judicata were satisfied.

The second lawsuit filed by Caballero against Wilmington is barred by res judicata because the claims arise from the same facts as those in the first suit. Wilmington contends that the current claim could have been litigated earlier, as both cases involve similar circumstances. Caballero argues that this new suit was initiated to halt a foreclosure pending as of April 2, 2019, asserting that different foreclosures imply distinct facts. However, he fails to provide legal authority for his claims. The deed of trust from March 13, 2006, specifies that notices be sent to Caballero's address, yet he complains that notices were incorrectly sent to a different P.O. Box. Caballero's first suit against Wilmington was filed on June 29, 2017, where he claimed a failure to receive the required Notice of Default under Texas Property Code 51.002(d). The court notes that Caballero did not plead these statutory violations in the first suit, despite having the opportunity to do so. Texas law maintains that if a subsequent suit arises from the same subject matter as a prior suit, it is barred if the matter could have been litigated previously. Consequently, the court concludes that Caballero's breach of contract claim regarding inadequate notice was previously raised or could have been raised, fulfilling the requirements for res judicata. The trial court's summary judgment against Caballero is affirmed, with costs awarded to Wilmington.