Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co.
Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortg. Co., 121 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003)
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District (Beaumont)
- Decided
- 2003-10-30
- Docket
- 09-03-065-CV
What happened
The Stanleys sued to cancel a trustee's deed, saying they did not get the foreclosure notices.
What the court decided
The court of appeals affirmed judgment for the lender. Under Property Code § 51.002(e), notice by certified mail is complete when deposited in the mail to the debtor's last known address; the statute requires constructive, not actual, notice.
In the court's words
“The statute requires constructive notice; there is no requirement of actual notice.”
Why it may matter to you
The question is usually not "did I get it?" but "was it mailed correctly, on time, to the right address?" Keep envelopes and ask for the mailing proof.
Why it might not apply
If the notice went to the wrong address, or was not sent by certified mail, or the dates are short, this rule does not help the lender.
Most useful when
- You never actually received the foreclosure notices
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.
Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortg. Co., 121 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003)Short formStanley, 121 S.W.3d 811Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Stanley v. CitiFinancial Mortg. Co., 121 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003), the court held that notice under Property Code § 51.002(e) is complete when sent by certified mail to the debtor's last known address, and actual receipt is not required. 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 - 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 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