Foreclosure Defense

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

As Houston lawyer Goodrum Steps In for Hall, he asks who brokered Vilt’s dismissal of the lawsuit? It certainly wasn’t Hall, it is claimed.

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.

Houston woman arrested accused of human smuggling

Victoria County Sheriff’s Office detains undocumented immigrants involved in incident March 9

Mar 12, 2021

VICTORIA, Texas- The Victoria County Sheriff’s Office has arrested Maritza Alvarez, 30, of Houston.

(LIT: Let’s hope its not the same Maritza Alverez)

She is accused of being involved in an incident March 9, 2021, in the area of the 500 block of Fordtran Road.

Authorities arrested and charged Alvarez with smuggling humans and engaging in organized criminal activity.

She is currently in the Victoria County Jail.

(LIT: We checked the Criminal Court Docket at Victoria for Maritza Alvarez and the search came back with ZERO results)

Investigators also detained three undocumented immigrants who were with Alvarez.

The three undocumented immigrants were turned over to the United States Border Patrol. Authorities believe the three undocumented immigrants were present during the officer-involved shooting that took place March 9.

Original Story Continues.

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

PLAINTIFF’S REVOCATION OF NON-SUIT AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY IN CHARGE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, ANETRAL HALL, Plaintiff, filing this her Revocation of Non-Suit in this cause, asking this Court to disregard the previously filed non-suit, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the following:

1.                    Plaintiff’s did not give her counsel, ROBERT C. VILT authorization to non-suit this action. Plaintiff ANETRAL HALL has obtained other counsel, and fully intends to proceed with this action against Defendants.

2.                  Plaintiff hereby revokes the non-suit previously filed, asking the Court to either ignore it or reinstate the cause in the event this Court has signed the non-suit order.

3.                  To date, no Defendant has been served and no answer or appearance has been filed.

DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY IN CHARGE

4.                  Plaintiff hereby designates the undersigned attorney, C. Greg Goodrum, as her attorney in charge in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

All communications from the Court or other counsel with respect to this suit shall be sent to the undersigned.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff ANETRAL HALL revokes the previously filed non-suit and designates C. Greg Goodrum as her attorney in charge.

THE GOODRUM LAW FIRM, PLLC
By: /s/ C. Greg Goodrum

C. GREG GOODRUM

202224128

HALL, ANETRAL vs. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND FSB

 (Court 295, JUDGE DONNA ROTH)

APR 21, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 13, 2022
JAN 17, 2023

Dec. 30, 2022, Happy New Year: Motion for no-evidence Summary Judgment GRANTED by Judge Donna Roth

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.

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.

1 Even if Home Today, Inc. were a party to this suit, Plaintiff Hall has no evidence that she is authorized to act on Home Today’s behalf, or even that she has any affiliation whatsoever with Home Today.

Moreover, if the Court determines Home Today is a plaintiff, this motion applies equally to Home Today’s claims for all the reasons set forth herein.

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.

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

PLAINTIFF’S REVOCATION OF NON-SUIT AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY IN CHARGE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, ANETRAL HALL, Plaintiff, filing this her Revocation of Non-Suit in this cause, asking this Court to disregard the previously filed non-suit, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the following:

1.                    Plaintiff’s did not give her counsel, ROBERT C. VILT authorization to non-suit this action. Plaintiff ANETRAL HALL has obtained other counsel, and fully intends to proceed with this action against Defendants.

2.                  Plaintiff hereby revokes the non-suit previously filed, asking the Court to either ignore it or reinstate the cause in the event this Court has signed the non-suit order.

3.                  To date, no Defendant has been served and no answer or appearance has been filed.

DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY IN CHARGE

4.                  Plaintiff hereby designates the undersigned attorney, C. Greg Goodrum, as her attorney in charge in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. All communications from the Court

or other counsel with respect to this suit shall be sent to the undersigned.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff ANETRAL HALL revokes the previously filed non-suit and designates C. Greg Goodrum as her attorney in charge.

THE GOODRUM LAW FIRM, PLLC
By: /s/ C. Greg Goodrum

C. GREG GOODRUM

16225 Park Ten Place Dr.,
Suite 500 Houston,
Texas 77084
TBN 08167250
E-mail – cgreg@goodrumlaw.com
(281) 578-3333
(281) 578-1333 (Facsimile)
Attorney for Plaintiff, ANETRAL HALL

By:

ANETRAL HALL
Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on May 10, 2022, as follows:

Robert C. Vilt                                                          Via E-mail/electronic transmission
Vilt Law, P.C.
5177 Richmond Avenue,
Suite 1142
Houston, Texas 77056
(713) 840-7570 (facsimile)
E-mail clay@viltlaw.com

/s/ C. Greg Goodrum
C. Greg Goodrum

Case (Cause) Number Style File Date Court Case Region Type Of Action / Offense
202224128- 7
Ready Docket
HALL, ANETRAL vs. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND FSB 4/21/2022 295 Civil Quiet Title
202125004- 7
Disposed (Final)
HALL, ANETRAL vs.
PSC 2019P LLC
4/27/2021 215 Civil Other Property
202122478- 7
Disposed (Final)
HALL, ANETRAL vs. PSC 2019P LLC 4/14/2021 129 Civil OTHER CIVIL
200681013- 7
Disposed (Final)
HALL, ANETRAL vs.
BARROW, TIMOTHY PAUL
12/28/2006 247 Family DIVORCE
200621206- 7
Disposed (Final)
HALL, ANETRAL  vs. BARROW, TIMOTHY PAUL 4/3/2006 247 Family WAIVER DIVORCE
202279808- 7
Active – Civil
ZIEGLER, LAURIE G vs. HORISONS, LLC 12/8/2022 333 Civil Construction
202239300- 7
Ready Docket
ARELLANO, DULCE vs.
JENSEN, JOSEPH DEAN
6/30/2022 152 Civil Quiet Title
202216262- 7
Disposed (Final)
CLARK-CHURCHWELL, LYNNETTE RILEY vs. CHURCHWELL, NYLE ALVEN 3/17/2022 247 Family Divorce No Children
202202076- 7
Disposed (Final)
WESTLAKE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION vs.
SITZES, KEVIN E
1/12/2022 334 Civil Foreclosure – Other
202139929- 7
Disposed (Final)
MODERN RENTAL HOMES LLC vs. BURRELL FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST 7/2/2021 189 Civil Quiet Title
202129986- 7
Ready Docket
HARRIS, CANAAN L vs.
DIMITRIJEVIC, MARK
5/19/2021 080 Civil Debt / Contract – Other
202103708- 7
Active – Civil
ALDINE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. DRV PROPERTIES LLC 1/21/2021 269 Civil Tax Delinquency
202073134- 7
Active – Civil
HARRIS COUNTY vs.
DRV PROPERTIES LLC
11/13/2020 215 Civil Tax Delinquency
202070627- 7
Abated
WALDEN ON LAKE HOUSTON COMMUNITY SERVICE ASSOCIATI vs. VALDEZ, DAVID DAN 11/3/2020 281 Civil Foreclosure – Other
201907104- 7
Hold For Judgment
ASHLAND RESEARCH UNIT LLC vs.
TRUSTMARK BANK N A
1/29/2019 152 Civil Other Property

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

Judge Ravi Sandill Extends TRO in Fraudulent Transfer Lawsuit for Gov. Protected Legal Bandit Clay Vilt

Vu Truong returns to HCDC re the same apt at 1901 Post Oak. In our related article, the other entity has always been Greenleaf House LLC.

Bandit Texas Lawyer Robert C. Vilt Drives Away With a New Deal

Shielded by the US Government’s Lawyer Protection Program, Robert C. Vilt is Striking Deals.

Outlaws and Oaths: Bandit Lawyer Robert Clayton Vilt Signs On as Counsel and Notary for New Lawsuits

Shielded by the US Government’s Lawyer Protection Program, Robert Clayton Vilt Takes on New Legal Battles as Both Attorney and Notary Public

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

Leave a Reply

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

To Top