Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf
Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001)
- Court
- Supreme Court of Texas
- Decided
- 2001-04-12
- Docket
- 00-0250
- Cited by later opinions
- 603
What happened
A church's note was accelerated, but years passed before the note holder tried to foreclose. The church asked a court to declare that the time to foreclose had run out.
What the court decided
The Texas Supreme Court held that clear notice of acceleration starts the four-year Texas limitations clock; the holder does not also have to take steps toward foreclosure. Effective acceleration takes two notices — intent to accelerate, then acceleration. The court rendered judgment for the church.
In the court's words
“Effective acceleration requires two acts: (1) notice of intent to accelerate, and (2) notice of acceleration.”
Why it may matter to you
If your loan was accelerated long ago, the lender may have run out of time to foreclose. This is the leading Texas case on when the clock starts.
Why it might not apply
A lender can abandon an acceleration — by accepting payments, by agreement, or by written notice — which resets the clock (see Boren). Texas later added Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.038 on rescinding acceleration. Get a lawyer to count the dates.
Most useful when
- Your loan was accelerated more than four years ago and nobody foreclosed
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.
Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001)Short formHoly Cross, 44 S.W.3d 562Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001), the court held that effective acceleration requires notice of intent to accelerate and notice of acceleration, and once the note is accelerated the four-year Texas limitations period to foreclose begins to run. 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 lostBinding in federal court
Boren v. U.S. National Bank Ass'n
807 F.3d 99 · Decided 2015
The Borens argued their bank waited too long — more than four years after accelerating — to foreclose. The bank pointed to later notices asking for less than the full balance.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
505 S.W.3d 542 · Decided 2016
The Woods took a home-equity loan on their Texas homestead that, they said, did not follow the Texas Constitution's rules. They sued years later to quiet title, and the lender said they were too late.
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