EKA LIQUIDATORS v. Phillips

Texas Supreme Court

EKA LIQUIDATORS v. Phillips

883 S.W.2d 178, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 588, 1994 Tex. LEXIS 36, 1994 WL 70402

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 9, 1994

DocketD-4157

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 883 S.W.2d 178 (EKA LIQUIDATORS v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

EKA LIQUIDATORS v. Phillips, 883 S.W.2d 178, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 588, 1994 Tex. LEXIS 36, 1994 WL 70402 (Tex. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question resolved today in Jackson v. Thweatt, 883 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.1994). Because the decision of the court of appeals, 883 S.W.2d 218, conflicts with our holding in Jackson, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Troy Phillips guaranteed two notes payable to the Heritage National Bank maturing in August 1986 and June 1987, respectively. The notes went into default on maturity, obligating Phillips on his guaranty. The FDIC acquired the notes as receiver for Heritage National Bank in September 1986, later assigning them to EKA Liquidators (“EKA”). After EKA brought suit on the notes in August 1991, Phillips moved for summary judgment based on the Texas four year statute of limitations. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.004. The trial court granted summary judgment for EKA, and the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that assignees of promissory notes from the FDIC are not entitled to the benefit of the six year limitations period applicable to the FDIC. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14).

We held today in Jackson that an assignee of a promissory note from the FDIC does receive the benefit of the special limitations provision set forth in section 1821(d)(14). Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the Court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the *179 cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question resolved today in Jackson v. Thweatt, 883 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.1994). Because the decision of the court of appeals, 883 S.W.2d 218, conflicts with our holding in Jackson, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Troy Phillips guaranteed two notes payable to the Heritage National Bank maturing in August 1986 and June 1987, respectively. The notes went into default on maturity, obligating Phillips on his guaranty. The FDIC acquired the notes as receiver for Heritage National Bank in September 1986, later assigning them to EKA Liquidators (“EKA”). After EKA brought suit on the notes in August 1991, Phillips moved for summary judgment based on the Texas four year statute of limitations. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.004. The trial court granted summary judgment for EKA, and the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that assignees of promissory notes from the FDIC are not entitled to the benefit of the six year limitations period applicable to the FDIC. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14).

We held today in Jackson that an assignee of a promissory note from the FDIC does receive the benefit of the special limitations provision set forth in section 1821(d)(14). Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the Court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the *179 cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

883 S.W.2d 178, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 588, 1994 Tex. LEXIS 36, 1994 WL 70402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eka-liquidators-v-phillips-tex-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack