Vilt’s Joint Representation of Home Today and Anetral Hall’s Foreclosure Lawsuit is Gone Tomorrow

LIT COMMENTARY & UPDATE

FEB 15, 2024

It appears after the summary judgment at the end of 2022, Hall was evicted or left the home and the new owners received the keys around June of 2023.

Texas homeowner Veronica Maple purchased her current residence in 2009. In 2022, she was arrested in Operation Lone Star for trafficking $222k in laundered money for the Mexican cartel. She was arrested, jailed, but never indicted or charged with a crime. https://t.co/GbmsWRZSYp

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 11, 2024

GOODRUM: NO SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS REINSTATEMENT OF BANDIT VILT’S NON-SUITED CASE

Compare to Lawyer Brandy Alexander (Fined but State Judge Refused to Allow Garnishment)

FEB 15, 2024

Coming up on LIT: Shocking facts and case studies on the current criminal activity endorsed by the US Gov for implementation by Federal Judges and Wall Street’s Creditor Rights lawyers. Truth that will shake American homeowners to the core. Stay tuned. #TruthRevealed #USJustice pic.twitter.com/3TBxGtLIgm

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 9, 2024

202224128

HALL, ANETRAL vs. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND FSB

 (Court 295, JUDGE DONNA ROTH)

APR 21, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 13, 2022

COMES NOW, Defendant WILIMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST VII-B (“RCOT” or “Defendant”), and pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), moves for entry of no-evidence summary judgment on the claims asserted against it by Plaintiff Anetral Hall (“Hall” or “Plaintiff”) and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

Introduction

RCOT purchased real property and the improvements thereon located at 6314 Lacoste Love Court, Spring, TX 77379 (the “Property”).

On October 22, 2021, RCOT, through counsel, delivered a “Notice to Vacate and Demand for Possession” to Anetral Hall, a tenant on the Property.

Plaintiff failed to vacate the Property and RCOT filed a petition for eviction with the Justice of Peace, which Plaintiff appealed to the County Court.

On April 1, 2022, the County Court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Possession in favor of RCOT, evicting Hall from the Property.

On April 11, 2022, Hall filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the eviction judgment rendered on April 1, 2022, which was ultimately dismissed by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals on May 24, 2022.

In an effort to collaterally attack the County Court eviction judgment, Hall initiated this case on April 21, 2022.

Hall sued RCOT seeking

(1) a declaratory judgment that RCOT does not have an ownership interest in the Property due to a break in the chain of title;

(2) suit to quiet title asserting RCOT’s claim to the Property is invalid;

(3) trespass to try title asserting Plaintiff has superior title to Defendant;

and

(4) fraudulent transfer asserting the company from whom RCOT purchased the Property, PSC 2019P, LLC (“PSC 2019”), transferred the Property to RCOT for inadequate consideration.

See generally Pl.’s Am. Pet. ¶¶ 17-23; see also Pl.’s First Supp. Pet. ¶ 4.

The above-listed claims in Hall’s Petition are wholly unsupported and unfounded. Hall has no evidence to support any of her claims. As such, the Court should award summary judgment in favor of RCOT.

THREE MONTHS FOR OVER $100 MILLION PLUS IN THEFT…TEXAS LAW FOR TX LAWYERS

Judge orders Chris Pettit’s release, cleared of contempt charge

The disgraced ex-attorney had been in jail for about 3 months for failing to comply with the court’s orders in his record bankruptcy case. pic.twitter.com/fC5BhfAlhg

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 8, 2022

Argument

A.     Summary Judgment Standard

A defendant can prevail on a no-evidence motion for summary judgment by asserting that there is no evidence to support one or more of the essential elements of a plaintiff’s claim.

Specifically, Rule 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(i)        No-Evidence Motion.

After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.

The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i).

A party moving for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 166a(i) is not required to provide supporting summary judgment evidence.

See, e.g., Gen. Mills Rests, Inc. v. Texas Wings, Inc., 12 S.W3d 827, 832 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.);

Moore v. K-Mart Corp., 981 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, writ denied).

Rather, the “no-evidence summary judgment shifts the burden to the nonmovant to present enough evidence to be entitled to a trial[;]

. . . [i]f the nonmovant is unable to provide some evidence, then the trial court must grant the motion.”

Merch. Ctr., Inc. v. WNS, Inc., 85 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (internal citations omitted).

To defeat such a motion, the non-movant must bring forth admissible evidence supporting each element of his claim which creates more than a mere surmise or suspicion of fact.

See Miller v. Mullen, 531 S.W.3d 771, 778 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016).

“When the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its existence, the evidence is no more than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no evidence.”

Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983).

If the non-movant fails to produce summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, the court must grant the motion.

See Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(i). See also Texas Wings, 12 S.W.3d at 832.

Rule 166a(i) does not require discovery to be completed but only that there be adequate time for discovery.

Lattrell v. Chrysler Corp., 79 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002).

“An adequate time for discovery is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the nature of the evidence necessary to controvert the no-evidence motion, and the length of time the case had been active in the trial court.”

Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Fuqua, 29 S.W.3d 140, 145 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).

Here, an adequate time for discovery has passed and Hall has no evidence to support any of her claims.

In fact, this case was already scheduled for trial on the two-week docket for October 3, 2022.

If Plaintiff has any evidence to support her claims, she should have it by now.

Moreover, according to the Scheduling and Docket Control Order, this Court would begin hearing no- evidence motions for summary judgment after November 18, 2022, which has already passed.

Altogether, the reasons listed above demonstrate that an adequate time for discovery has passed, and as such, Hall cannot avoid a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

Company Name:  
HOME TODAY, INC.

Assumed/DBA Name:  
HFN INC.

Entity Type:
TEXAS FOREIGN NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

File Number:  
0802825679

Filing State:
Texas (TX)

Domestic State:  
Nevada (NV)

Filing Status:  
Revoked

Filing Date:  
September 28, 2017

Company Age:  
5 Years, 3 Months

Principal Address: 
1000 N Green Valley Pkwy #440-452
Henderson, NV 89074

Governing Agency:  
Texas Secretary of State

B.     There is No Evidence in Support of the Declaratory Judgment Claim

Hall’s claim for declaratory judgment should be dismissed because she has no evidence to support this claim. A declaratory judgment action requires proof of two elements:

“(1) there must be a real controversy between the parties

and

(2) the controversy must be one that will actually be determined by the judicial declaration sought.”

Nehls v. Hartman Newspapers, LP, 522 S.W.3d 23, 29 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied).

A real controversy “ceases to exist when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id.

Thus, when there is no “real controversy between the parties,” a declaratory judgment action is not available.

In this case, Hall seeks declaratory judgment “that Home Today, Inc. is the owner of the Property as well as that the pending eviction of Anetral Hall from the Property is wrongful because Defendant does not have an ownership interest in the Property and Defendant thus lacks standing to evict people from the Property.”

Pl.’s Am. Pet., ¶ 18.

First, Home Today, Inc. is no longer a party to this suit,

and because “all persons who have or claim any interest that would be affected by the declaration must be made parties,” there is no “real controversy between the parties” with respect to RCOT and Home Today, Inc.1

See Tex. Civ. Prac. And Rem. Code § 37.006.

Second, because the “pending eviction” is no longer pending as the Fourteenth District has dismissed the appeal, and Hall is a prior tenant who has never owned the Property, Hall has not and cannot produce any evidence that there is a “real controversy” between herself and RCOT with respect to RCOT’s ownership interest in the Property.

See Nehls, LP, 522 S.W.3d at 29 (“A controversy ceases to exist when …the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”).

Because Hall has no evidence of a “real controversy between the parties,” the declaratory judgment claim against RCOT should be dismissed.

Disgraced former San Antonio Lawyer Chris Pettit indicted over alleged thefts from ex-clients

The same day a bankruptcy judge decided to free him from jail for contempt, a federal grand jury criminally charged the ex-lawyer in connection with theft from his former clients. pic.twitter.com/OURTUNI1aO

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 11, 2022

C.     There is No Evidence to Support a Quiet Title Claim.

“The elements of the cause of action to quiet title are that the plaintiff must show

(1) an interest in a specific property,

(2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant,

and

(3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable.”

Lockhart as Tr. of Lockhart Family Bypass Tr. v. Chisos Minerals, LLC, 621 S.W.3d 89, 101 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, pet. denied).

In other words,

“[t]he plaintiff in a quiet-title suit must prove, as a matter of law, that he has a right of ownership and that the adverse claim is a cloud on the title that equity will remove.”

DHI Holdings, LP v. Legacy Mortgage Asset Tr. 2018-RPLS2, No. 14-19-00987-CV, 2021 WL 4957023, at *5 n. 12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 26, 2021, pet. denied).

“The plaintiff has the burden of supplying the proof necessary to establish his superior equity and right to relief.”

Id.

Here, Hall has no evidence to support element one.

As merely a prior tenant, rather than owner, Hall has no evidence to support any claim that she has “a right of ownership” or “interest in a specific property.”

See id; see also Lockhart, 621 S.W.3d at 101.

Thus, summary judgment on Hall’s Quiet Title claim is appropriate.

Hall also has no evidence to support the third element.

That is, Hall has no evidence to show that RCO’s interest in the Property is invalid or unenforceable.

Thus, summary judgment on Hall’s Quiet Title claim is appropriate.

D.     There is No Evidence to Support a Trespass to Try Title Claim.

For Hall to prevail on a trespass-to-try-title action, she must

“(1) prove a regular chain of conveyances from the sovereign,

(2) establish superior title out of a common source,

(3) prove title by limitations,

or

(4) prove title by prior possession coupled with proof that possession was not abandoned.”

Lance v. Robinson, 543 S.W.3d 723, 735 (Tex. 2018).

“The trespass-to-try-title statute, however, only applies when the claimant is seeking to establish or obtain the claimant’s ownership or possessory right in the land at issue.

Id.; see also Tex. Prop. Code § 22.002 (requiring “evidence of…sufficient title to maintain a trespass to try title action.”).

Much like Hall’s quiet title claim above, she cannot prove any ownership or possessory right in the Property by any of the four aforementioned methods.

She was a prior tenant who had no ownership in the Property when the Property was sold in a foreclosure sale.

And she has no right to possession of the Property as conclusively established through the eviction proceedings.

Because Hall has no evidence to support of her trespass-to-try-title claim, RCOT is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

American Mortgage Investment Partners Management LLC. 3020 OLD RANCH PARKWAY, STE 180, SEAL BEACH, CA.

AMIP Management (“AMIP”) is an alternative asset manager with ~$900mm in assets under management.

AMIP acquires, securitizes, and manages portfolios of non-performing (“NPL”) and re-performing (“RPL”) residential-backed whole loan mortgages and real estate owned (“REO”) properties for institutional and private investors.

E.     There is No Evidence of a Fraudulent Transfer.

Lastly, Hall does not have any evidence with respect to her fraudulent transfer claim.

To prove that a transfer was fraudulent under The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), plaintiff must show

(1) his claim arose prior to the property transfer;

(2) transferee did not pay reasonably equivalent value for the property;

and

(3) the transferor was insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.

Corpus v. Arriaga, 294 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.).

Here, Hall has no evidence to prove elements one, two, or three of her fraudulent transfer claim.

First, Hall’s claim against PSC 2019 arose in the form of a judgment, which is dated March 7, 2022, approximately five months after the transfer of the Property from PSC 2019 to RCOT on October 21, 2021.

Thus, Hall cannot provide any evidence that her claim arose prior to the property transfer.

See Corpus, 294 S.W.3d at 634.

Second, Hall has no evidence that RCOT did not provide adequate consideration to PSC 2019 for the Property.

And, Hall has no evidence that PSC 2019 was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.

Resultingly, because Hall cannot prove any element of her fraudulent transfer claim, RCOT is entitled to summary judgment under a no-evidence standard.

F.     Hall is Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees

Because there is no claim on which Hall may prevail, she is not entitled to attorneys’ fees.

Foreclosure Scam Squad Series: A Pro Se LLC in Judge Al Bennett’s Chambers is a Crooked HAR Realtor https://t.co/xznFiIZuF5

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 11, 2022

PRAYER

Wherefore Defendant WILIMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST VII-B respectfully moves the Court grant this No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and order that Plaintiff Anetral Hall take nothing on her claims, and for such other and further relief, in law and equity, to which RCOT may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
CONDON TOBIN SLADEK
THORNTON NERENBERG PLLC

/s/ Jared T.S. Pace

Jared T.S. Pace
Texas Bar No. 24079098
8080 Park Lane, Ste. 700
Dallas, Texas 75231
Telephone: (214) 265-3800
Facsimile: (214) 691-6311
jpace@condontobin.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by electronic filing as follows:

The Goodrum Law Firm, PLLC
C. Greg Goodrum
16225 Park Ten Place Dr.,
Suite 500 Houston,
Texas 77084
cgreg@goodrumlaw.com

Signed this the 28th day of NOVEMBER 2022.

/s/ Jared T.S. Pace
Jared T.S. Pace

202122478 – HALL, ANETRAL vs. PSC 2019P LLC (Court 129)