The Supreme Court of Texas, in PNC Mortgage v. Howard, recently held that the holder of a deed of trust was entitled to foreclose through equitable subrogation, even after the four-year foreclosure statute of limitations had lapsed. Click here to read the opinion. 

In 2003, the borrowers purchased a home with loans secured by two purchase-money liens on their property. Two years later, the borrowers refinanced the mortgages with a new loan and paid off the purchase-money mortgages. The note and deed of trust securing the loan were subsequently assigned to and acquired by a new lending entity (“mortgagee”).

In January 2009, the mortgagee notified the borrowers of their default and intent to accelerate the loan, and five months later, accelerated the note. Concurrently, the original lender initiated foreclosure proceedings against the borrowers despite having assigned the loan to the mortgagee, which resulted in a sale of the property.

[October 7, 2020 | Dallas, TX] Today Padgett Law Group (PLG) announced the promotion of Kris Zilberstein, Esq. to the role of Supervising Attorney of Bankruptcy Operations. Previously, Kris served the firm as a Senior Bankruptcy Attorney. She joined PLG in 2020 and has practiced in the creditors rights' space since 2009. 
 
In her new role, Kris leads PLG's docket related matters (“DRM”) in bankruptcy, also known as the practice's national unit, which include PLG’s National Attorney Network, Special Projects, and business purpose loans. In addition, Kris continues her California & Chapter 11 practice.

"Kris proved to be an immediate asset to PLG with her many years of focused, specialized bankruptcy experience from Chapter 11 work to complex litigation and managing multi-jurisdictional work. As our national practice continues to grow, Kris was clearly the right fit to help the firm manage that growing piece of our business," said Managing Attorney of Bankruptcy Keena Newmark, Esq. ​

"I am thrilled to step into this new role with PLG. My diverse experience in all facets of bankruptcy has prepared me for a national operational and legal oversight role. I am excited to start this next chapter of my career with PLG," said Kris. 
 
Kris is based out of the firm's Dallas, TX office. Kris is license in Texas, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, and Washington. She can be reached at [email protected]. ​

​In a unique move, that mimics the rules of Federal Procedure, The Texas Supreme Court has made some of the biggest discovery changes to occur in Texas State trial courts in the past two decades. Attorneys and staff will need to take to learn and fully understand all the changes in order to properly implement new procedures as they apply to all cases filed on or after January 1, 2021. 
​
In accordance with the 86th legislature and Senate Bill 2342 the Texas Supreme Court has approved amendments to Rules 169 and 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule 169 governing expedited actions has been amended to apply to suits in which all claimants, other than counter-claimants, affirmatively plead that they seek only monetary relief aggregating $250,000 or less excluding interest, statutory, or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs. This amendment has effectively raised the statutory limitation for expedited actions from $100,000 to $250,000. This will essentially promote the prompt, efficient, and cost-effective resolution of civil actions filed in courts of law in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $250,000. Further, certain actions will remain exempt from Rule 169’s application by statute. See e.g. Tex. Estates Code Sec. 53.107. 
​
The most important changes to be aware of however have been made to the rules of discovery. Per the new amendments, discovery and production will no longer be optional.

Effective as of January 1, 2021 Rule 194 has been amended as follows: 
194.1 Duty to Disclose; Production 

• Duty to Disclose. Except as exempted by Rule 194.2(d) or as otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties the information or material described in Rule 194.2, 194.3, and 194.4.
• Production. Copies of documents and other tangible items ordinarily must be served with the response. But if the responsive documents are voluminous, the response must state a reasonable time and place for the production of documents. The responding party must produce the documents at the time and place stated, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court and must provide the requesting party a reasonable opportunity to inspect them.

194.2 Initial Disclosures 

• Time for Initial Disclosures. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 30 days after the filing of the first answer unless a different time is set by the parties’ agreement or court order. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the filing of the first answer must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different time is set by the parties’ agreement or court order.
• Content. Without awaiting a discovery request, a party must provide to the other parties:

1. The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
2. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
3. The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);
4. A computation of each category of damages claimed by the responding party—who must also make available for inspection and copying the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered;
5. The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case;
6. A copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the responding party has in its possession, custody, or control, and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
7. Any indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule 192.3(f);
8. Any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3(g);
9. Any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h);
10. In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills;
11. In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party; and
12. The name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party.

 ​The Texas Supreme Court has commented that the amendment to Rule 194 will assist in balancing the need for lowering discovery costs against the complexity of and discovery needs in expedited actions. Further, Rule 194 is amended based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) to require disclosure of basic discovery automatically, without awaiting a discovery request. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s disclosure or because another party has not made its disclosures. 

In a decision that will be deemed as a big win for creditors, litigators, or really anyone who has ever dealt with evasive defendants, the State of Texas has decided to enter into a new age and territory when it comes to dealing with service of process.
​
The Supreme Court of Texas in accordance with the 86th Legislature and Senate Bill 891 has approved amendments to Rule 106 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 106 has been revised in response to section 17.033 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which calls for rules to provide for substituted service of citation by social media.

Effective immediately, PLG's Texas operations and the firm's bankruptcy operations will be led by Keena Newmark, Esq., who has joined the firm as Managing Attorney of Bankruptcy Operations. The new Dallas office is also home to additional attorney hires Julian Cotton, Esq. and Mary Vitarkas, Esq. Over the coming weeks, additional Texas staff hires will be announced. Also effective immediately is the promotion of Evan S. Singer, Esq. to Managing Attorney of Default Services, a newly created firm-wide role. Evan remains based out of the firm’s Atlanta, GA office and will work closely with Keena across the firm's practices, operations, client relations, and business development efforts. ​