Nemer Massaad v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-3

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-14-00202-CV

5032109

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/24/2015 5:37:02 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

No.03-14-00202-CV CLERK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS November 13, 2015 THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN TEXAS

NEMER MASSAAD, and all other OCCUPANTS Appellant

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3, ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-3 Appellee.

Appeal from the County Court at Law Number One Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. C-I-CV-14-000401 Hon. Joe Carroll, presiding

Oral Argument Requested

MOTION FOR REHEARING

ENBANC

Identity of the Parties

Appellant/Defendant NEMER MASSAAD

Counsel for Appellant/Defendant

James Minerve State Bar No. 24008692 115 Saddle Blanket Trail Buda, Texas 78610· (210) 336-5867 (888) 230-6397 (Fax)

(Appellate, Post-trial, and Appellate)

Appellee/Plaintiff WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3,ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-3

J Counsel for Appellee/Plaintiff

Mackie WolfZientz & Mann, P.C.

Mark D. Cronenwett 1;) State Bar No. 00787303 Parkway Office Center, Ste 900 14160 North Dallas Parkway Dallas, Texas 75254 (214) 635-2650 (888) 230-6397 (Fax)

(Appellate, Post-trial, and Appellate)

Table of Contents

Identity of Parties and Counsel 11

Table of Contents iii Table of Authorities .iv . Glossary of Terms 1 Statement of the Case " 1 Statement Regarding Oral Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Issues Presented .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Statement of Facts 5 Summary of the Argument 6 Argument Issue 1 8 The Puentes and Crawford Holdings. . . . . .. . 8 Puentes v. Fannie Mae Case Summary 9 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Crawford Case Summary 10 Legal Injury Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Continuing Tort Rule 19 Argument Issue 2 21 Whether the courts have defined the accrual of action in a limitation case 21 Hickey v. Huntington National Bank 21 Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf 22 Prayer 24 Certificate of Service . 25 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 25 Certificate of Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 26 Appendix 27

Table of Authorities

Cases Page Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp .. 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996) . 13

Arauette v. Hancock 656 S.W.2d 627,629 (Tex. App. 'San Antonio 1983, writ re'd n.r.e.)..... ... 20

Brown v. Henderson, 941 S.W.2d 190 (App. 13 Dist.. 1996) 12

Cuellar V. Martinez, 625 S.W.2d 3,5 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1981, no writ) 14 Childs v. Haussecker.

974 S.W.2d 31 (Supp. 1998, rehearing overruled) 15 Doe v. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, 362 S.W.3d707, 716 (Tex. App. -EI Paso 2011, no pet.) .7

Fandev v. Lee. 880 S.W.2d 164,168 (Tex.App.-EI Paso 1994, writ denied) 14

Federal Home Loan Mqr/gqge Corp. v. Crawford, No. 14-13-0010-CV . Tex.App-Houston [14 DISt.] (2014) 6,10 Houtex Ready Mix Concrete & Materials v. Eagle Const. & Environment Services, LP, 226 S.W.3d 514 (App. 1 Dist. 2006). 12

Hickey v. Huntington National Bank, No. 01-12-00670-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [18t Dist.] (2013))..................................................... 21

Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex.2001 ).. 21

Johnson v. Highland Hills Drive Apartments. 552 S.W.2d 493. 495 Tex.Civ.App.- Dallas 1977), writ refd n.r.c. per curiam, 568 S.W.2d 661;(Tex. 1978) .. 14

Johnson V. Fellowship Baptist Church, 7 S.W.2d 203,204 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1981, no writ) '" 14

IV

Kennedy v. Highland Hills Apartments. 905 S.W.2d 325,326 Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no writ .13

Krohn v. A/arcus Cable Assocs .. L.P .. 201 S.W.jd 876, 880 (Tex. App-Waco 2006, pet. denied) 20 Lopez v. Sulak, 76 S.W.3d 597, 605 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) ....................•...................................................................... 14

Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Bartlett, 958 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997, rehearing overruled, review denied, rehearing Of petition for review overruled)... ... ... ... .. . . .. .. . . .. . ... .. . .. ... ... .. . . .. 16

Morriss v. Enron Oil & Gas Co.., 948 S.W.2d 858 (App. 4 Dist. 1997) 16 Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex. 1990) 7

Puentes v. Fannie Mae. 350 S.W.3d 732, 734-35 (Tex. App. - EI Paso 2011, Pet. dism'd '" 8,9

Pustejovsky v. Rapid Arnerican Corp., 35 S.W.3d 643 Supp. 2000) 15 Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705; 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 1831 13 Rogers v. Ardella Veigel Inter Vivo Trust 162 S. W.3d 281 at 290) .... 20 Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., (App. 7 Dist, 1996) 930 S.W.2d 157. 16 Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Tex. 1977) 7

Sullivan v. Bickel & Brewer, 943 S.W.2d 477 (App. 5 Dist. 1995, writ denied, rehearing of writ of error overruled) 16

Two Pesos. Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co.. 901 S.W.2d 495.500 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ) 19

Ward v. Malone. 115 S.W.3d 267.270 (Tex. Atm-Corpus Christi 2003. pet. Denied) 14

v

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.1 3 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 510 (738-754. Repealed by Order of April 15- 2013, Eff. Aug. 31, 2013) 10

Texas Property Code Texas Property Code Section 24.002-008 13 Texas Property Code Section 24.005(b) """''''''''''',.............................. 5, 6

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 31.005 (2013) 16 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Ann. § 16.003(a) and (b) (West Supp. 1998) 10 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 16.03 12,21,23 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §16.035 22

VI

Glossary of Terms

Citation in this Brief will be as noted below to the following volumes of the

record on file in this appeal, said volumes being incorporated herein by reference:

Clerk' Record CR Reporter's Record Volume 1 RR1 Reporter's Record Volume 2 RR2 Reporter's Record Volume 3 RR3

Statement of the Case This is a Forcible Detainer Case. October 18, 2011 the Appellee filed a Forcible Detainer Action. November 7, 2011, the JP Court issued a judgment in favor of Appellant, denying the possession to the Appellee. 1 Appellee re-filed its lawsuit under Cause No. 051840 and the JP Court dismissed it as a duplicate case on November 7, 2011.2 November 7, 2011, a party in interest, at the time, filed in District Court a Quiet Title Action, Cause No. D-I-GN-Il::-003424.3 November 21,2011, the Appellee filed another FED Action in this Court, Cause No. 0522.12. December 29,2011, this Court issued Judgment for the AppellantA November 6, 2013, the Appellee filed another FED action (FED Action 4) in the JP Court,

1 Exhibit C: FED Order 1, in favor of Defendant, dated November 7, 2011, Cause No. 051975. 2 Exhibit D: FED Order 2, in favor of Defendant, Duplicate Case Dismissal Order, dated November 7, 2011, Cause No. 051840. 3 Exhibit E: Quiet Title Action, filed in the 345th District of Travis County, dated November 7, 2011, Cause No. D-IGN-II-003424. 4 Exhibit F: FED Order 3, in favor of Defendant, dated December 29,2011.

Cause No. J3CV13056327. The JP Court rendered judgment in favor of the Appellee. The Appellant appealed to the County Court at Law No.1. The County Court held a trial de novo and ruled in favor of the Appellee without issuing an OpInIOn.

Statement Regarding Oral Argument

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 39.1, Nemer Massaad requests oral argument and submits that it would materially aid the decisional process in this case.

Issues Presented

Appellant respectfully submits the following motion for rehearing brief which outlines the legal framework in which the Court should consider the following:

1. Whether the Two-year limitation period of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §16.003 bars Appellee's Forcible Detainer suit for possession of the property.

2. Whether the courts have determined the accrual of action in a limitation case.

MOTION FOR REHEARING

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about September 6, 2011, the Appellee wrongfully conducted a foreclosure sale of this property.5 RR2 at 6; RR3 at PI's Exh. 2. September 23, 2011, the Appellee provided the Appellant with the Notice prescribed in Texas Property Code§ 24.005(b).6 RR2 at D's Exh. B. October 18, 2011 the Appellee filed a Forcible Detainer Action, authorized under Texas Property Code§ 24.005(b). RR2 at 18. November 7,2011, the JP Court issued a judgment in favor of Appellant, denying the possession to the Appellee.7 RR2 at 20. Appellee re- filed its lawsuit under Cause No. 051840 and the JP Court dismissed it as a duplicate case on November 7, 2011.8 RR2 at 20; Appellant's Brief at 9. November 7, 2011, a party in interest, at the time, filed in District Court a Quiet Title Action, Cause No. D-I-G.N-Il-003424.9 RR2 at 37; Appellant's Brief at 9. November 21, 2011, the Appellee filed yet another FED Action in this Court,

5 Exhibit A: Trustee Deed, dated September 6, 2011 6 Exhibit B: Notice to Vacate, dated September 23,2011 7 Exhibit C: FED Order 1, in favor of Defendant, dated November 7,2011, Cause No. 051975. 8 Exhibit D: FED Order 2, in favor of Defendant, Duplicate Case Dismissal Order, dated November 7, 2011, Cause No. 051840. 9 Exhibit E: Quiet Title Action, filed in the 345th District of Travis County, dated November 7, 2011, Cause No. D-IGN-II-003424.

Cause No. 052212. RR2 at 20; Appellant's Brief at 9. December 29, 2011, this Court again issued Judgment for the Appellant. 10 RR2 at 20,' Appellant's Brief at 9.

October 30,2013, the Appellee mailed the Appellant a superfluous Notice to Vacate letter. CR 116-38, Bus. Records Aff. - Notices to Vacate' see also Appellant's Brief at 9. Finally, over two years after September 26, 2011, when the Appellee sent the Appellant the Notice required under Texas Property Code§ 24.005(b), on November 6, 2013, the Appellee filed yet another FED action (FED Action 4) in the JP Court, Cause No. J3CV13056327. The JP Court rendered judgment in favor of the Appellee. The Appellant appealed to the County Court at Law No.1. The County Court held a trial de novo and ruled in favor of the Appellee without issuing an opinion.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Court's holding on Appeal and Appellee's Appeal Brief are based on the holdings of two cases. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Crawford, Cause No. 14-13-0010-CV (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2014]; and Puentes v. Fannie Mae, 350 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2011, pet.. dism'd). These cases are inapplicable to this case before this court.

The applicable statute of limitations on a suit for forcible detainer is two

10 Exhibit F: FED Order 3, in favor of Defendant, dated December 29,2011.

years. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § J6.003(a) (West Supp. 1998). For a suit to be timely under a two-year statute of limitations, it must be brought within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues. Id. A cause of action generally accrues at the time when facts come into existence authorizing a claimant to seek a judicial remedy. Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex.1990). In Texas, a Plaintiffs cause of action accrues, and the applicable limitations period starts to run, "when a wrongful act causes some legal injury, even if the fact of injury is not discovered until later, and even if all resulting damages have not yet occurred." S. V. v. R. v., 933 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex. 1996). See also Doe v. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, 362 S.W.3d 707, 716 (Tex.App-El Paso 2011, no pet.)(same).

For the purposes of application of statute of limitations, a cause of action generally accrues at the time when facts come into existence which authorizes a claimant to seek a judicial remedy. Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Tex. 1977). Put another way, "a cause of action can generally be said to accrue when the wrongful act effects an injury. In this case, the Appellee did not suffer an injury until it sent the Three-day Notice to Vacate and the Appellant refused to vacate. The Appellee sent the Three-day Notice September 23, 2011. Three days later, September 26, 2011, and not sooner, the Appellee could file an FED Action. The Appellee's injury occurred when the Appellant did not comply with the