Charter National Bank-Houston v. Stevens
Charter Nat'l Bank-Houston v. Stevens, 781 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989)
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (Houston)
- Decided
- 1989-10-26
- Docket
- A14-88-421-CV
- Cited by later opinions
- 92
What happened
Mr. Stevens' commercial property was sold at foreclosure. Evidence showed the bank's actions discouraged a buyer who was ready to bid. A jury awarded him $54,315.
What the court decided
The court of appeals affirmed. Where the mortgagee deliberately "chilled" the bidding and the owner seeks damages rather than setting the sale aside, the owner need not separately prove a grossly inadequate price.
In the court's words
“deliberately “chilled” by the affirmative acts of a mortgagee”
Why it may matter to you
A Texas owner won damages because the lender interfered with the sale. If the sale's time, place or conduct kept buyers away, this case is worth knowing.
Why it might not apply
It involved commercial property and deliberate conduct proved at trial. Ordinary sale-notice mistakes usually still require the full Sauceda elements.
Most useful when
- Bidders were kept away or discouraged at the sale
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Charter Nat'l Bank-Houston v. Stevens, 781 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989)Short formStevens, 781 S.W.2d 368Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Charter Nat'l Bank-Houston v. Stevens, 781 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989), the court held that when a mortgagee deliberately chills the bidding at a foreclosure sale, the injured owner seeking damages need not also prove a grossly inadequate selling price. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner wonAppeals court in your state
Sauceda v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
268 S.W.3d 135 · Decided 2008
The Saucedas fell behind on their Robstown home loan while, they said, they were working with the servicer in a "home retention program." The house was sold at foreclosure for about $88,800. They sued for wrongful foreclosure and the trial court threw the case out before trial.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Ogden v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n
640 S.W.2d 232 · Decided 1982
Mr. Ogden owned a house in Corpus Christi. After he fell behind, the savings association posted a trustee's sale and sold the house. He sued for wrongful foreclosure and lost in the lower courts.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp.
511 U.S. 531 · Decided 1994
After a California home sold at foreclosure for far below its claimed value, the owner filed bankruptcy and tried to undo the sale as a fraudulent transfer.
Read the case