Shumway v. Horizon Credit Corp.
Shumway v. Horizon Credit Corp., 801 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. 1991)
- Court
- Supreme Court of Texas
- Decided
- 1991-01-16
- Docket
- C-8669
- Cited by later opinions
- 140
What happened
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.
What the court decided
The Texas Supreme Court held that a waiver of notice must be clear and unequivocal. The Shumways' note waived notice of acceleration, but not notice of intent to accelerate, so the holder still owed them that warning. The court reversed the judgment against them.
In the court's words
“Waiver of "notice", in only so many words, does not refer clearly and unequivocally either to notice of intent to accelerate”
Why it may matter to you
Before demanding the whole loan, a Texas lender normally must warn you it intends to. If you never got that warning, this is the Texas Supreme Court case that says the warning matters.
Why it might not apply
Many modern deeds of trust spell out notice terms clearly, and some waive notices expressly. Read your own note and deed of trust — the exact words decide.
Most useful when
- The lender demanded the whole balance without first warning it intended to
- Your note has a general "waiver of notice" clause
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.
Shumway v. Horizon Credit Corp., 801 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. 1991)Short formShumway, 801 S.W.2d 890Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Shumway v. Horizon Credit Corp., 801 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. 1991), the court held that a borrower waives notice of intent to accelerate only by clear and unequivocal language, and a general waiver of "notice" is not enough. 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 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 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 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