Appellate Judges

Foreclosure Mill BDF Law Group Celebrate the Corrupt Texas Supreme Court Decisions in 2020 and 2021

In an enormous victory for lenders and servicers, on January 29, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court confirmed it is completely a corrupt judiciary.

LIT Commentary: Bobbie Forster’s Forgetful Disclosures

What is missing from this article by BDF’s Robert “Bobbie” Forster is the conspiracy to steal the Howards’ home by his foreclosure mill, who represented PNC.

On Appeal, Forster along with Austin attorney Mark Hopkins of “BDF Hopkins” would submit fake documents to the court, replicating a move they had attempted to do in the Burkes winning defenses against Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Both lower court judges would reject the fraud upon the court, without further sanctions against the lyin’ lawyers.

What is undisputed is the fact the Federal Fifth Circuit and the Texas Supreme Court conspired to unlawfully circumvent the Texas Constitution protection of homeowners, turning a blind eye to fraud on the court by this foreclosure mill and it’s shell-sham affiliates, and in doing so violated the Rule of Law.

Texas Supreme Court Throws the Industry a Lifeline

APR 15, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 6, 2021

In an enormous victory for lenders and servicers, on January 29, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the voiding of a lender’s lien due ‎to the expiration of the statute of limitations does not preclude the lender from foreclosing on a ‎pre-existing lien under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. [PNC Mortg. v. Howard, ___ ‎S.W.3d ___, 2021 WL 297579, at *1 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam).]

Consistent with their rationale in Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Zepeda, 601 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020), this holding further strengthens the power of the equitable subrogation defense and solidifies this alternative to lender’s counsel when faced with allegations of a potentially unenforceable lien.

The Howards purchased a home in 2003 with two purchase-money mortgages. Two years later, the Howards refinanced these mortgages with the Bank of Indiana. Primarily using the proceeds from the Bank of Indiana loan, the Howards paid off the two existing mortgages on their property. The Bank of Indiana later assigned the note and deed of trust to National City Mortgage Company, a subsidiary of National City Bank. National City Bank later merged with PNC Mortgage.

In 2008, the Howards stopped making payments on the note. In January 2009, National City Bank notified the borrowers of their default and of its intent to accelerate the loan if they did not cure it. Months later, National City Bank sent notices of acceleration of the debt. The Howards ‎challenged the foreclosure on the basis that the original lender no longer held the mortgage and ‎added PNC as a defendant. PNC counterclaimed, seeking a foreclosure of its lien. Concerned that the limitations period had already passed, counsel for PNC sought a judgment ‎declaring its right to foreclose on the purchase-money liens through equitable subrogation in the alternative. The trial court declared that PNC’s lien and note were unenforceable, and it rendered judgment that PNC take nothing on its claims against the Howards.

PNC appealed. It’s pertinent to note here that PNC argued that the Howards had used the proceeds from the PNC refinancing loan to discharge the existing mortgages, and as a result, PNC had an equitable lien against the property. The ‎appellate court held that, to the extent PNC held equitably subrogated liens, those liens became ‎unenforceable when PNC forfeited its own lien by failing to foreclose within the requisite limitations period.

Just a couple months after the court of appeals’ opinion, the lender in the Zepeda case appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which in turn certified the following question to the Texas Supreme Court:

“Is a lender entitled to equitable subrogation, where it failed to correct a curable constitutional defect in the loan documents under § 50 of the Texas Constitution?”

[Zepeda v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 935 F.3d 296, 301 (5th Cir. 2019)].

The Supreme Court answered yes.

[Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Zepeda, 601 S.W.3d 763, 764 (Tex. 2020).

The court further elaborated that equitable subrogation

“allows a lender who discharges a valid lien on the property to step into the prior lienholder’s shoes and assume that lienholder’s security interest in the property, even though the lender cannot foreclose on its own lien.”

[Zepeda at 766.]

‎As such, counsel for PNC petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review solely contending the opinion in Zepeda required reversal; the Texas Supreme Court agreed.

The court

“observed ‎that equitable-subrogation rights become fixed at the time the proceeds from a later loan are used ‎to discharge an earlier lien.”

It further stated that a

“lender’s negligence in preserving its rights under its ‎own lien does not deprive the lender of its rights in equity to assert an earlier lien that was ‎discharged using proceeds from the later loan”

[Howard, 2021 WL 297579, at *3].

Applying Zepeda to the facts of the case before it, the Texas Supreme Court held ‎that PNC’s failure to timely foreclose under its deed of trust did not bar its subrogation rights, ‎and subrogation permits a lender to assert rights under a lien its loan has satisfied when the lender’s own lien is infirm. ‎

Without hearing oral argument, the Texas Supreme Court granted PNC’s petition for review and reversed that portion of the court of appeals’ judgment, declaring PNC’s equitable-subrogation rights unenforceable based on a determination that PNC was dilatory in enforcing its own lien.

It also remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Zepeda.

Unmistakably a win for lenders and servicers with assets located across the Lone Star State, this by no means lets lenders “off the hook.” They must actively engage counsel and continue to monitor their liens to circumvent potential statute of limitations issue altogether to avoid having to assert their equitable subrogation rights.

About Author: Robert D. Forster, II






Robert D. Forster, II, is the Managing Partner of the BDF Law Group and is based in the Addison, Texas location.

The BDF Law Group provides a full range of legal services to creditors on defaulted commercial and residential mortgage loans.

Since joining the firm in 2006, his practice has primarily consisted of real estate, mortgage banking, and probate matters throughout Texas.

He is a frequent speaker at continuing legal and title education programs on mortgage banking, title, probate, and creditors’ rights-related topics and has authored numerous articles and publications, including serving as a co-author of the Texas State Bar’s Foreclosure Manual.

Federal Law: The Rights of Elderly Litigants to Be Heard At an Oral Hearing

Justice Frankfurter believed that no better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than the notice and hearing requirement.

Stalinism, According to Elon Musk, Reaches Social Media

Twitter CEO Agrawal is the youngest CEO among those leading the top 500 companies in the world and his first move is to attack free speech.

Texas Federal Chief Judge Refuses to Label 18 Year Pro Se’s as Vexatious Litigants

This is the Pro Se’s ninth lawsuit involving the foreclosure of the Property and third lawsuit against the Attorney Defendant Barrett Daffin.

Foreclosure Mill BDF Law Group Celebrate the Corrupt Texas Supreme Court Decisions in 2020 and 2021
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top