Reule v. M & T Mortg.

• Citation: 483 S.W.3d 600
• Decision Date: 29 October 2015
• Docket Number: NO. 14–13–00502–CV,14–13–00502–CV
• Parties: Christine E. Reule, Appellant v. M & T Mortgage, M & T Bank, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Bayview Financial Trading Group, LP, Bayview Financial, LP, Hughes, Watters, Askanase, LLP, Carolyn Taylor, Audrey Lewis, Jeff Leva, Sandy Dasigenis, and RLZ Investments, Inc., Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

483 S.W.3d 600

Christine E. Reule, Appellant

v.M & T Mortgage, M & T Bank, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Bayview Financial Trading Group, LP, Bayview Financial, LP, Hughes, Watters, Askanase, LLP, Carolyn Taylor, Audrey Lewis, Jeff Leva, Sandy Dasigenis, and RLZ Investments, Inc., Appellees

NO. 14–13–00502–CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed October 29, 2015

Rehearing Overruled February 25, 2016

Christine E. Reule, Houston, TX, pro se.

Richard A. Battaglia, C. Ed Harrell, Daniel Francis Patton, Houston, TX, for Appellees.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frostand Justices Boyceand McCally

OPINION

Sharon McCally, Justice

Appellant Christine E. Reule appeals from a take nothing judgment in favor of appellees M & T Mortgage, M & T Bank, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Bayview Financial Trading Group, LP, Bayview Financial, LP, and Hughes, Watters & Askanase, LLP (collectively, Mortgagees/Representatives), as well as appellees Carolyn Taylor, Audrey Lewis, Jeff Leva, Sandy Dasigenis (collectively, Trustees), and appellee RLZ Investments, Inc. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Overview

Reule purchased a condominium located in Houston in 1999. As part of the purchase, Reule financed $32,300 with a loan from First Capital Bank. Reule signed a promissory note and a Deed of Trust. For at least four years, Reule made payments on the note. In 2003, Bayview Financial Trading Group, LP acquired Reule's mortgage. Reule alleged that she developed a dispute with her new mortgage servicer, M & T Mortgage, sometime in 2004. The dispute centered on how M & T Mortgage credited sums she paid in excess of her monthly mortgage payment and payments M & T Mortgage made for her taxes. In ultimate response to M & T Mortgage's refusal to "make proper credits to the account," Reule sent M & T Mortgage a check for $205.98, the amount of her regular monthly mortgage payment, in November 2006, and noted in the memo line that is was "full and final pmnt on the disputed account." M & T Mortgage cashed the check. Thereafter, Reule made some mortgage payments, but failed to pay others.

In March 2007, Reule's mortgage loan servicing was transferred to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview Loan). On April 19, Hughes, Watters & Askanase, L.L.P. (Hughes, Watters), on behalf of Bayview Loan, accelerated the payments due under the note and notified her Reule that a foreclosure sale would occur in June. Bayview Loan did not proceed with the foreclosure sale. Reule stopped making payments on her mortgage in July 2008.

Meanwhile, in December 2008, Reule filed suit against the Mortgagees/Representatives, the Trustees, and RLZ Investments arising largely from her claim that she paid in full on her home mortgage through the partial payment marked "full and final," as well as the Mortgagees/Representatives' ongoing efforts to collect payments on what they alleged was a delinquent account. Reule asserted as "claims" (1) accord and satisfaction; (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA); (3) violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); (4) violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), and (5) breach of contract.

In February 2009, Bayview Loan notified Reule that she was in default and demanded payment of $1,839.80. Reule did not pay the amount Bayview Loan claimed was owed. Bayview Loan subsequently foreclosed on Reule's property, and the property was sold in a July 5, 2011 foreclosure sale. Reule continued living in the property despite the foreclosure sale and was still occupying the property as of the date of trial in May 2013. After the foreclosure, Reule filed a second suit for declaratory relief that was consolidated with her December 2008 suit.

B. The Summary Judgments

The trial court granted partial summary judgment on many of Reule's claims in three separate orders. In December 2009, the trial court granted Appellees' "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" on accord and satisfaction and the DTPA claims. In January 2012, the trial court granted in part and denied in part the Mortgagees/Representatives' "Motion for Second Motion [sic] for Summary Judgment." Specifically, the trial court ordered that the Mortgagees/Representatives' traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment on the FDCPA claims and TDCA claims were granted and the Mortgagees/Representatives' no-evidence summary judgment motion on Reule's breach of contract and Declaratory Judgments Act claims were denied.¹

Finally, in July 2012, the trial court granted the Mortgagees/Representatives' motion for summary judgment on all of Reule's pleaded damage claims that sounded in tort. Specifically, the trial court granted the motion stating, "Plaintiff as a matter of law cannot recover personal injury, mental anguish and/or pain and suffering type damages through Plaintiffs wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment causes of action."

C. The Jury Trial

The trial court called all remaining claims to trial on May 30, 2013. Reule and her daughter were the only witnesses. Reule rested on June 5. The trial court heard and granted motions for directed verdict on the following claims, which it specifically documented in the final judgment:

(1) all of Reule's claims against Bayview Financial Trading Group, LP, Bayview Financial, LP, M & T Mortgage, M & T Bank, Hughes Watters, Carolyn Taylor, Audrey Lewis, Jeff Leva, and Sandy Dasigenis;

(2) the wrongful foreclosure and the section 12.001 claims against Bayview Loan;² and

(3) the wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract claims against RLZ Investments, Inc.³

The jury returned a verdict in which it determined, in pertinent part, that (a) Bayview Loan is the owner of the Deed of Trust; (b) Bayview Loan did not fail to comply with the terms of the Deed of Trust; (c) Reule failed to comply with the terms of the Deed of Trust; and (d) Reule and Bayview Loan did not agree to a note Reule claimed to have signed in purple, know at trial as the "Purple Ink Note."

D. The Post–Verdict Motions

The Mortgagees/Representatives filed a post-trial motion for sanctions against Reule, seeking sanctions of $3,015. As grounds, the Mortgagees/Representatives asserted Reule significantly delayed trial and wasted the time of the trial court, the parties and their counsel, and the jury by, inter alia, tardiness to court proceedings, failing to be prepared for pretrial proceedings, failing to be prepared to present her case in chief, changing her exhibit list several times during trial, and failing to provide counsel with copies of her exhibits. The trial court granted the motion for sanctions on June 24, 2013, and ordered Reule to pay $900 "in sanctions for interfering with the Court's ability to hear evidence and decide issues of law and fact in the trial of this matter."

Reule filed a motion and an amended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), asking the trial court to disregard all jury findings and to enter judgment in her favor. She did not file a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the JNOV motion and entered a take-nothing judgment. That same day, the trial court signed an amended order of sanctions, which provided that, as an alternative to paying the $900 in sanctions, "Ms. Reule may submit to the court a written statement in her own handwriting that states 100 times that, 'I will not waste the time of the court, opposing counsel, jurors, or court personnel.' " Reule timely noticed her appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Issues on Appeal

Reule's brief, though redrawn with additional length afforded, fails to "state concisely all issues or points presented for review." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f). We nonetheless construe Reule's brief liberally to reach her appellate issues on the merits, where possible. See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex.2008). Despite our liberal reading of her brief, we note that pro se litigants such as Reule are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex.1978); Brown v. Tex. Emp't Comm'n , 801 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied).

Liberally construing Reule's brief, we glean challenges to the following: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support several jury findings; (2) several pre-trial summary judgment orders; (3) the trial court's allowing the withdrawal of Reule's counsel nearly two years before trial, over Reule's objection; (4) the trial court's refusal to submit jury questions provided by Reule; (5) the trial court's failure to submit Reule's state and federal fair debt collection claims to the jury; (6) the denial of Reule's JNOV motion on damages for medical costs; (7) the post-trial amended order granting sanctions against Reule; (8) the denial of Reule's quiet-title claim; (9) the trial court's refusal to apply New York law to some of Reule's claims; (10) the timeliness of the Mortgagees/Representatives' trial brief; (11) the Mortgagees/Representatives' purported violations of motions in limine; and (12) the trial court's "tossing out" of Reule's "chain of title" claim.

Because several of Reule's issues fall into similar categories, we discuss them together. But we begin our analysis of Reule's issues with her sufficiency complaints.

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Reule challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's answers to questions 1, 2, 4, and 8. We begin our analysis by noting that Reule challenged both the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support these jury findings. But, to preserve error for appellate review, Reule would have had to voice a complaint of factual insufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding in a motion for new trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2). Reule did not file a motion for new trial. Reule filed a motion for JNOV. A JNOV motion does not preserve a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence. Cecil v. Smith, 804...