Tarrant Savings Ass'n v. Lucky Homes, Inc.
Tarrant Sav. Ass'n v. Lucky Homes, Inc., 390 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. 1965)
- Court
- Supreme Court of Texas
- Decided
- 1965-04-14
- Docket
- A-10262
What happened
After a foreclosure sale brought only $1,200, the lender sued the borrowers for the remaining debt. The borrowers asked to set the sale aside because the price was so low.
What the court decided
The Texas Supreme Court held that a low price alone does not void a foreclosure sale; there must also be some unfair or wrongful conduct in the sale that combines with the inadequate price. It found none here.
Why it may matter to you
It is the honest limit: in Texas a very low price is not enough by itself. Pair it with a real defect in the process, which is exactly what Techy looks for in your notices.
Why it might not apply
Texas later added a statute (Prop. Code § 51.003) letting borrowers ask for a fair-market-value offset against a deficiency. That is a separate protection.
Most useful when
- Your property sold for a small fraction of its value
- The lender is asking you for a deficiency after the sale
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.
Tarrant Sav. Ass'n v. Lucky Homes, Inc., 390 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. 1965)Short formLucky Homes, 390 S.W.2d 473Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Tarrant Sav. Ass'n v. Lucky Homes, Inc., 390 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. 1965), the court held that an inadequate foreclosure price alone does not void the sale unless it combines with unfair or wrongful conduct in conducting it. 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
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 - 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 - 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