Ogden v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n
Ogden v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n, 640 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. 1982)
- Court
- Supreme Court of Texas
- Decided
- 1982-07-14
- Docket
- C-769
- Cited by later opinions
- 153
What happened
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.
What the court decided
The Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Mr. Ogden for the damages the jury found. Where the holder has an option to accelerate on default, equity requires notice of the intent to accelerate, and that notice was not properly given before the sale.
In the court's words
“equity demands notice be given of the intent to exercise the option”
Why it may matter to you
A real Texas homeowner won money after his home was sold without the right warning. It is the root of the notice-of-intent rule later Texas cases repeat.
Why it might not apply
It is from 1982, before today's § 51.002(d) notice-and-cure statute; a note or deed of trust can waive this notice in clear words (see Shumway). Damages here came after a full trial.
Most useful when
- Your home was sold without a proper warning that the loan would be accelerated
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.
Ogden v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n, 640 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. 1982)Short formOgden, 640 S.W.2d 232Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Ogden v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n, 640 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. 1982), the court held that when a note holder has the option to accelerate on default, equity demands notice of the intent to exercise that option before foreclosing, and a homeowner sold out without it may recover damages. 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
- Partial winBinding
Shumway v. Horizon Credit Corp.
801 S.W.2d 890 · Decided 1991
The Shumways defaulted on a note and the holder demanded the entire balance. The holder argued the note's waiver language meant it did not have to warn them first.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf
44 S.W.3d 562 · Decided 2001
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.
Read the case - Homeowner wonOther state
Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co.
472 Mass. 226 · Decided 2015
Emigrant foreclosed on the home of Lesley Phillips and Linda Pinti. Its default notice did not track the mortgage's paragraph 22, which spells out what the notice must say.
Read the case