Moore v. Bank Midwest
Texas Court of Appeals
39 S.W.3d 395 (2001)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Jerry and Jean Moore (defendants) bought property with a mortgage loan from the predecessor in interest of Bank Midwest, N.A. (bank) (plaintiff). The loan was secured by a promissory note, which limited the Moores’ personal liability to 20 percent of the outstanding loan balance. Houston State Associates (HSA) (defendant) purchased the property from the Moores and assumed their note. HSA later sold the property to MGM Real Estate Management, Inc. (MGM), which took title subject to the Moores’ mortgage. MGM defaulted on the mortgage payments, but because MGM never assumed the note, the bank had no recourse against MGM. The bank accelerated the note and foreclosed on the property. The bank was the sole bidder at the foreclosure sale and therefore was able to buy the property for the below-market price of $1.16 million. The bank sued the Moores to make up the deficiency, which under state statute was the loan’s balance due (approximately $1.66 million) less the property’s fair market value (approximately $1.45 million, as supported by evidence and assessed by the trial jury). The trial court entered a deficiency judgment of approximately $221,000 plus attorneys’ fees, well within the Moores’ 20 percent liability limitation (approximately $332,000, if calculated at 20 percent of the loan’s $1.66 million balance due). Third-party defendant HSA did not dispute the court’s ruling that it was liable to the Moores for the deficiency judgment’s amount. On appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals, the Moores contended that (1) the property was worth far more than $1.45 million and that the deficiency judgment was therefore excessive and (2) even assuming that the deficiency judgment was warranted, the Moores’ approximate personal liability was only $44,000 (20 percent of the deficiency judgment) rather than $221,000.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.