Sauceda v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
Sauceda v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008)
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District (Corpus Christi–Edinburg)
- Decided
- 2008-08-26
- Docket
- 13-07-00522-CV
- Cited by later opinions
- 140
What happened
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.
What the court decided
The court of appeals reversed and sent the case back for trial. It restated the three elements of a Texas wrongful-foreclosure claim — a defect in the sale proceedings, a grossly inadequate price, and a causal link between the two — and held the homeowners had offered enough evidence to have those questions decided at trial.
In the court's words
“The elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim are: (1) a defect in the foreclosure sale proceedings”
Why it may matter to you
If Techy found a problem in your notices and your home sold for far less than it was worth, this case shows the three things a Texas court looks for — and that a homeowner can get past an early dismissal.
Why it might not apply
Winning the right to a trial is not winning the case. All three elements must be proved; a notice defect with a fair sale price usually is not enough. It is an intermediate appellate decision.
Most useful when
- Your home was already sold at a foreclosure sale
- Something went wrong in the notices or the sale, and the price was very low
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.
Sauceda v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008)Short formSauceda, 268 S.W.3d 135Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Sauceda v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008), the court held that a wrongful-foreclosure claim requires a defect in the sale proceedings, a grossly inadequate selling price, and a causal connection between them, and that homeowners who offer evidence of each are entitled to a trial. 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
Charter National Bank-Houston v. Stevens
781 S.W.2d 368 · Decided 1989
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.
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