Eleftherios Kaldis AKA Ted Kaldis and Monica Kaldis v. Aurora Loan Services ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Opinion filed
    February 25, 2014.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-12-00542-CV
    ELEFTHERIOS KALDIS, A/K/A TED KALDIS, AND MONICA KALDIS,
    Appellants
    V.
    AURORA LOAN SERVICES, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 151st District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2011-35135
    OPINION
    This is an appeal from a summary-judgment dismissal of a wrongful-
    foreclosure claim, among others. The main issue on appeal centers on proof of
    statutory notice of the foreclosure sale and whether there is a fact issue as to the
    existence of a defect in the foreclosure-sale proceedings. Because we conclude the
    trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to the wrongful-foreclosure
    claim, we reverse and remand as to that claim. We affirm the remainder of the trial
    court’s judgment.
    I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Appellants/Plaintiffs Eleftherios Kaldis, a/k/a Ted Kaldis, and Monica
    Kaldis owned the real property at 2920 Pasadena Boulevard in Pasadena, Texas
    (the “Property”). In July 2007, the Kaldises executed a promissory note and deed
    of trust securing the note with a deed-of-trust lien on the Property. The Kaldises
    defaulted on the note. The mortgage servicer, appellee/defendant Aurora Loan
    Services gave notice of default and acceleration and began foreclosure proceedings
    against the Property. In July 2008, Aurora gave the Kaldises the opportunity to
    enter into a Special Forbearance Agreement (“Forebearance Agreement”).
    Although Aurora argues that the Kaldises did not timely take the steps necessary to
    enter into this agreement, the Kaldises assert that they entered into it and that
    Aurora ratified their acceptance of the Forbearance Agreement. Presuming that the
    Forbearance Agreement was accepted, the Kaldises’ next payment was due on
    October 1, 2008. The Kaldises assert that they made this payment when their
    insurer sent a check for Hurricane Ike damage to Aurora.
    Aurora decided to proceed with a November 4, 2008 foreclosure sale on the
    Property. Aurora asserts that written notice of foreclosure was properly served on
    the Kaldises by certified mail, but the Kaldises dispute this assertion and claim that
    they did not receive this foreclosure notice by certified mail or otherwise.
    Following a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the Property, Aurora filed an
    Appointment of Substitute Trustee and Substitute Trustee’s Deed in the Harris
    County real property records. After the Kaldises refused to vacate the Property,
    Aurora initiated a forcible-entry-and-detainer action. Aurora obtained a judgment
    in its favor1 in the forcible-detainer action but did not enforce it until after the trial
    1
    The Kaldises unsuccessfully appealed to the county court and then to the First Court of
    Appeals. See Kaldis v. Aurora Loan Services, No. 01-09-0027-CV, 
    2010 WL 2545614
    (Tex.
    2
    court rendered its summary judgment in the case under review.
    In the trial court, the Kaldises filed suit against Aurora, asserting claims for
    (1) wrongful foreclosure and related declaratory relief, (2) wrongful eviction and
    related declaratory relief, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraud, and (5) usury.
    Aurora filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the following
    grounds:
    (1) as a matter of law, the summary judgment evidence shows that
    there were no defects in the foreclosure proceedings and therefore the
    wrongful-foreclosure claim fails as a matter of law;
    (2) there is no evidence of any defect in the foreclosure proceedings
    and therefore the wrongful-foreclosure claim fails as a matter of law;
    (3) as a matter of law, the summary judgment evidence shows that the
    Kaldises have not been evicted from the Property and therefore the
    wrongful-eviction claim fails as a matter of law;
    (4) there is no evidence that the Kaldises have been evicted from the
    Property and therefore the wrongful-eviction claim fails as a matter of
    law;
    (5) there is no evidence of the essential elements of the breach-of-
    contract claim;
    (6) there is no evidence of the essential elements of the fraud claim;
    (7) the claims for declaratory relief fail because the related claims for
    wrongful-foreclosure and wrongful-eviction fail; and
    (8) there is no evidence of the essential elements of the usury claim.
    The trial court granted Aurora’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed all of
    the Kaldises’ claims with prejudice.
    II. ISSUES PRESENTED
    On appeal, the Kaldises assert the following issues: (1) the trial court erred
    in granting a traditional and no-evidence summary judgment as to the wrongful-
    App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 24, 2010, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.).
    3
    foreclosure claim; (2) the trial court erred in granting a no-evidence summary
    judgment as to the breach-of-contract, fraud, and usury claims; (3) fact issues exist
    precluding summary judgment; (4) the trial court erred in granting summary
    judgment while the Kaldises’ motion to compel production of documents was
    pending; (5) the trial court erred in denying the Kaldises’ motion to compel
    production of documents; (6) the trial court erred by including dismissal with
    prejudice language in its summary-judgment order; and (7) the trial court erred by
    denying the Kaldises’ motion to set supersedeas bond.
    III. ANALYSIS
    A.    Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment as to the claims
    for wrongful foreclosure and related declaratory relief?
    In a traditional motion for summary judgment, if the movant’s motion and
    summary-judgment evidence facially establish its right to judgment as a matter of
    law, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a genuine, material fact issue
    sufficient to defeat summary judgment. M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v.
    Willrich, 
    28 S.W.3d 22
    , 23 (Tex. 2000). In reviewing a no-evidence summary
    judgment, this court ascertains whether the nonmovant pointed out summary-
    judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to the essential elements
    attacked in the no-evidence motion. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 
    73 S.W.3d 193
    , 206–08 (Tex. 2002).        In our de novo review of a trial court’s
    summary judgment, this court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the nonmovant, crediting evidence favorable to the nonmovant if reasonable
    jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could
    not. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 
    206 S.W.3d 572
    , 582 (Tex. 2006). The evidence
    raises a genuine issue of fact if reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ in
    their conclusions in light of all of the summary-judgment evidence. Goodyear Tire
    4
    & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 
    236 S.W.3d 754
    , 755 (Tex. 2007). When, as in this case,
    the order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds upon which the
    trial court relied, the summary judgment must be affirmed if any of the
    independent summary-judgment grounds is meritorious. FM Props. Operating Co.
    v. City of Austin, 
    22 S.W.3d 868
    , 872 (Tex. 2000).
    Under their first issue, the Kaldises assert that the summary-judgment
    evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact as to four alleged defects in the
    foreclosure-sale proceedings.2 One of these defects is Aurora’s alleged failure to
    serve written notice of the foreclosure sale on the Kaldises in compliance with
    section 51.002(b) of the Texas Property Code.             See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §
    51.002(b) (West 2014). Under this statute, notice of the foreclosure sale must be
    given at least twenty-one days before the date of the sale by, among other things,
    “serving written notice of the sale by certified mail on each debtor who, according
    to the records of the mortgage servicer of the debt, is obligated to pay the debt.”
    Thus, to have given proper notice of the foreclosure sale, Aurora was required to
    have served written notice on the Kaldises by certified mail on or before October
    13, 2008. See 
    id. Service of
    this notice by certified mail is complete when the
    notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the
    Kaldises at their last known address. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(e) (West
    2014).    Aurora asserts that notice of foreclosure was properly served on the
    Kaldises by employees of the law firm of Brown & Shapiro, LLP on October 13,
    2008.
    The summary-judgment evidence contains an affidavit of Kirk Schwartz, in
    2
    In its traditional and no-evidence summary-judgment grounds, the only element of the
    Kaldises’ wrongful-foreclosure claims that Aurora challenged was the existence of a defect in
    the foreclosure-sale proceedings. Thus, the other elements of the wrongful-foreclosure claims
    are not at issue in this appeal.
    5
    which he testifies that two exhibits attached to his affidavit are business records of
    Shapiro Schwartz, LLP f/k/a Brown & Shapiro, LLP.3 Each exhibit is substantially
    similar, one is addressed to Ted Kaldis and the other is addressed to Monica
    Kaldis.       Each exhibit starts with a two page letter from the “Foreclosure
    Department” of Brown & Shapiro, LLP (“Brown & Shapiro”). Each letter is
    addressed to the respective spouse at the Property address. Underneath the firm
    letterhead at the top of each letter is the date “October 13, 2008.” Each letter is
    entitled “Notice of Acceleration and Posting” and states that the law firm has been
    retained by Aurora to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Each letter contains a two-
    page enclosure entitled “Notice of Trustee’s sale,” which gives notice of a
    foreclosure sale on the Property to be conducted on November 4, 2008 (the
    “Foreclosure Date”). Each notice recites that it was signed on October 13, 2008 by
    Substitute Trustee Cathy Ashcraft.            Following these four pages, each exhibit
    contains a single page that appears to be a printout of the items that ordinarily
    would be used to send a letter by certified mail to the respective spouse, including
    a “Receipt for Certified Mail” (PS Form 3800) and a return receipt (PS Form
    3811), often called a “green card.” These items are not yet separated from each
    other, and none of these items were attached to the other four pages in the exhibit
    when the copies of these pages were made. Each “Receipt for Certified Mail”
    contains the date “November 4, 2008” under the address. Of course, because these
    items have not been separated and attached to any item to be mailed, the “Receipt
    for Certified Mail” contains no postmark or date reflecting the date of mailing, nor
    does the return receipt reflect receipt by the addressee.
    Though each letter from Brown & Shapiro is dated October 13, 2008 and
    each foreclosure notice recites that it was signed on this date, nothing in either
    3
    Other than proving up these documents, Schwartz does not provide any testimony.
    6
    exhibit recites or reflects that any document was mailed on October 13, 2008, or on
    any other date. The summary-judgment evidence does not contain a Receipt for
    Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) reflecting a date on which these documents were
    mailed, nor does the evidence contain any return receipt (PS Form 3811) reflecting
    receipt.
    The summary-judgment evidence contains affidavits by Ted and Monica
    Kaldis, in which each testifies as follows: “I did not know about the November 4,
    2008 foreclosure sale on the Property prior to the sale taking place. I did not
    receive or see a notice of the foreclosure sale prior to the November 4, 2008 sale
    date. . . I certainly did not receive anything by way of certified mail in those
    regards.”
    The only other summary-judgment evidence that arguably relates to the
    alleged mailing of the foreclosure notices is the “Affidavit of Custom or Practice of
    Mailing” executed by Cheryl Clede. In this affidavit, Clede testifies as follows:
          “The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal
    knowledge and are true and correct.”
          Clede was employed by the law firm of Brown & Shapiro from
    July 1999 until a corporate merger in August 2009.
          Brown & Shapiro represented financial institutions, lien
    holders, and mortgage servicers in all aspects of the foreclosure
    process in Texas.
          “In connection with their representation in the foreclosure
    process [Brown & Shapiro] drafted, prepared and sent pre-
    foreclosure notices required by the Texas Property Code and
    the security instrument to be foreclosed.”
          “My title with [Brown & Shapiro] on October 13, 2008 (the
    “Date of Mailing”) was ‘Foreclosure Processor.’”
          Clede is personally familiar with the usual and customary
    practice of [Brown & Shapiro] for mailing notices as it existed
    7
    on October 13, 2008.
           “Attached hereto [] as Exhibits A and B, respectively, are
    letters sent from [Brown & Shapiro] to Ted Kaldis and Monica
    Kaldis.”
           As of October 13, 2008, in correspondence with borrowers such
    as the Kaldises, Brown & Shapiro had the following usual and
    customary practices: “[u]pon receipt of a foreclosure referral,
    [Brown & Shapiro] generated a ‘Notice of Acceleration and
    Posting’ and [‘]Notice of Trustee’s Sale’ for mailing to the
    Borrower.” Clede then detailed additional practices of Brown
    & Shapiro, LLP for the mailing of these notices. In describing
    these practices, Clede did not refer to the receipt-for-certified-
    mail form or the return-receipt form.
    After generally describing Brown & Shapiro’s work in foreclosure matters,
    Clede referred to the notices in question by saying that attached to her affidavit
    “are letters sent from [Brown & Shapiro] to Ted Kaldis and Monica Kaldis.”
    Aurora asserts that this statement is direct testimony that the notices were mailed.
    See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(e) (stating that “[t]he affidavit of a person
    knowledgeable of the facts to the effect that service was completed is prima facie
    evidence of service”).        We disagree.          This statement is a description of the
    documents attached to the affidavit. Even presuming that this statement constitutes
    a statement that the attached documents were sent to the Kaldises, such a statement
    would be a conclusory statement, which is insufficient to support a summary
    judgment.4 See Hall v. Bean, 
    416 S.W.3d 490
    , 494 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
    Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Clede’s affidavit contains no direct statements of fact to the
    effect that these notices were deposited in the United States mail on October 13,
    4
    In any event, this statement does not reflect whether these letters were “sent” by mail, nor does
    this statement reflect the date on which these letters were sent.
    8
    2008, or on any other date.5
    Aurora also argues that in her affidavit, Clede proves that the notices were
    mailed to the Kaldises on October 13, 2008, based upon the circumstantial
    evidence of Brown & Shapiro’s customary mailing routine. Aurora asserts that
    matters of proper addressing, stamping, and mailing may be proved by
    circumstantial evidence, such as the customary mailing routine of the sender’s
    business. Though Brown & Shapiro’s customary mailing routine may provide
    evidence of such matters, for it to do so, corroborating evidence is also required
    that the customary mailing routine was actually carried out in the case in question.
    See Wembley Investment Co. v. Herrera, 
    11 S.W.3d 924
    , 927–28 (Tex. 1999); Tex.
    Emp. Ins. Ass’n v. Wermske, 
    349 S.W.2d 90
    , 92 (Tex. 1961); Strobel v. Marlow,
    
    341 S.W.3d 470
    , 477–78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). No such evidence is
    contained in our summary-judgment record.
    Though Clede describes Brown & Shapiro’s customary mailing routine
    regarding correspondence with borrowers such as the Kaldises, neither Clede’s
    testimony nor any other summary-judgment evidence corroborates that this mailing
    routine was carried out as to the foreclosure notices. Clede stated that “[u]pon
    receipt of a foreclosure referral, [Brown & Shapiro] generated a ‘Notice of
    Acceleration and Posting' and [‘]Notice of Trustee’s Sale’ for mailing to the
    Borrower.” Nonetheless, neither Clede’s testimony nor any other evidence reflects
    whether or when Brown & Shapiro received a foreclosure referral. Though Clede
    describes Brown & Shapiro’s customary mailing routine, neither her affidavit nor
    any other evidence corroborates that this mailing routine was actually carried out
    5
    Clede’s use in her affidavit of the defined term “Date of Mailing” to refer to October 13, 2008,
    by itself, is not a statement of fact that any item was mailed on that date. Aurora has asserted
    that the notices were mailed on that date, and affiants are free to use whatever defined terms they
    wish in their affidavits.
    9
    as to the foreclosure notices on or before October 13, 2008.6                     See Wembley
    Investment 
    Co., 11 S.W.3d at 927
    –28; 
    Wermske, 349 S.W.2d at 92
    ; 
    Strobel, 341 S.W.3d at 477
    –78. Thus, the summary-judgment evidence does not contain
    circumstantial evidence showing that the foreclosure notices were sent by certified
    mail to the Kaldises and were deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
    on or before October 13, 2008. See Wembley Investment 
    Co., 11 S.W.3d at 927
    –
    28; 
    Wermske, 349 S.W.2d at 92
    ; 
    Strobel, 341 S.W.3d at 477
    –78.
    Aurora emphasizes that Aurora only was required to serve written notice of
    the foreclosure sale on each of the Kaldises by certified mail and that such service
    is complete when each respective notice is deposited in the United States mail,
    postage prepaid and addressed to the debtor at the debtor’s last known address.
    See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002 (b),(e). This is a correct statement of this
    statutory notice requirement.         See 
    id. Aurora also
    asserts that the Kaldises’
    testimony that they did not receive these notices does not mean that the notices
    were not sent and that the Kaldises conceded at their respective depositions that
    they have no knowledge as to whether these notices were mailed.                          Even if
    testimony that the debtors did not receive the notices would be insufficient to raise
    a fact issue as to whether the notices were properly mailed in the face of evidence
    that the notices were properly mailed, in the case under review, there is no direct or
    circumstantial evidence that the notices were properly mailed.                    See Wembley
    Investment 
    Co., 11 S.W.3d at 927
    –28; 
    Wermske, 349 S.W.2d at 92
    ; Strobel, 341
    6
    Aurora cites In re Halliburton. See 
    2009 WL 1886659
    , at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
    Dist.] Jul. 2, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). But, in that case there was direct evidence that
    the document in question was mailed, and the court’s statement of the law does not conflict with
    our analysis in this case. See 
    id. Aurora also
    relies upon Texaco, Inc. v. Pham, 
    137 S.W.3d 763
    ,
    767–68 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). But, in Pham, in addition to the
    testimony regarding the district clerk’s customary mailing routine, there was corroborating
    testimony that the mailing routine was actually carried out as to the notice in question based on
    evidence that an assistant district clerk entered the information into the information management
    system that would trigger the mailing routine. See 
    id. 10 S.W.3d
    at 477–78.
    Aurora relies upon the Fist Court of Appeals’s opinion in Adebo v. Litton
    Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 01-07-00708-CV, 
    2008 WL 2209703
    , at *2–4 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 29, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). In Adebo, unlike in
    the case under review, there was an affidavit from the foreclosure director directly
    stating that the notice had been properly sent by certified mail on the date in
    question, and there were documents supporting this testimony. See 
    id. at *2.
    Therefore, the summary-judgment evidence in Adebo was materially different from
    the summary-judgment evidence in today’s case.7
    The summary-judgment evidence contains no testimony from a person with
    knowledge of the facts to the effect that either notice was mailed in compliance
    with Property Code section 51.002. Even presuming that Brown & Shapiro’s
    customary mailing routine, as described by Clede, satisfied all the requirements of
    Property Code section 51.002, there is no summary-judgment evidence showing
    that this mailing routine was actually carried out as to the foreclosure notices at
    issue. The business records of Brown & Shapiro contained in the summary-
    judgment evidence do not reflect or recite that either foreclosure notice was mailed
    on October 13, 2008 or on any other date.8 In addition, the Kaldises have testified
    that they did not receive these notices.                On this record, under the applicable
    7
    The Adebo court also held that the debtor’s mere denial that he received a notice was
    insufficient to raise a fact issue as to whether the notice was served. See Adebo, 
    2008 WL 2209703
    , at *4. We agree, but the summary-judgment evidence in today’s case contains more
    than the Kaldises’ testimony that they did not receive the foreclosure notices.
    8
    The creation of a letter that has a date at the top of it does not, by itself, show that the letter was
    mailed on or before that date. A letter may be drafted and then not sent at all. Or, a letter may
    be mailed after the date stated in the letter. The date in this letter was the last possible date for
    timely mailing of the foreclosure notices. In addition, the fact that the standard certified-mail
    items were prepared does not necessarily mean that they were used to mail the notices on or
    before October 13, 2008, or on any other date.
    11
    standard of review, we conclude that there is a genuine fact issue as to whether
    written notice of the foreclosure sale was given to either of the Kaldises as required
    by Property Code section 51.002(b) and thus as to whether there was a defect in
    the foreclosure-sale proceedings.          See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(b),(e);
    Wembley Investment 
    Co., 11 S.W.3d at 927
    –28; 
    Wermske, 349 S.W.2d at 92
    ;
    
    Strobel, 341 S.W.3d at 477
    –78.              Therefore, the trial court erred in granting
    summary judgment as to the Kaldises’ wrongful-foreclosure claims and related
    claims for declaratory relief.9 Accordingly, we sustain the Kaldises’ first issue and
    their third issue to the extent it addresses these claims.
    B.     Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment while the motion
    to compel production of documents was pending?
    Under their fourth issue, the Kaldises argue that the trial court erred in
    granting summary judgment because (1) when it did so, the trial court had
    not yet ruled on the Kaldises’ motion to compel production of documents;
    and (2) discovery was still ongoing. In their summary-judgment response,
    the Kaldises objected that it was premature for the trial court to rule on
    Aurora’s summary-judgment motion because discovery was ongoing and
    because the deadline for Aurora to respond to the Kaldises’ requests for
    production had not yet passed. After the Kaldises were not satisfied with
    Aurora’s responses to these requests, they filed a motion to compel
    production of documents, which was set for hearing but had not yet been
    heard when the trial court granted summary judgment.
    In these complaints, the Kaldises assert that the trial court erred in
    9
    Because we have found a fact issue as to this alleged defect in the foreclosure-sale proceedings,
    we need not and do not address the other three alleged defects in the foreclosure-sale
    proceedings asserted by the Kaldises.
    12
    granting summary judgment at a time when they had not yet had an adequate
    opportunity for discovery. When a party contends it has not had an adequate
    opportunity for discovery before a summary judgment hearing, the party
    must file either an affidavit explaining the need for further discovery or a
    verified motion for continuance. See Tenneco, Inc. v. Enterprise Products,
    Co., 
    925 S.W.2d 640
    , 647 (Tex. 1996); Triad Home Renovators, Inc. v.
    Dickey, 
    15 S.W.3d 142
    , 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no
    pet.). The record does not reflect that the Kaldises took either of these steps;
    thus, they failed to preserve error. See Tenneco, 
    Inc., 925 S.W.2d at 647
    ;
    Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston ex rel. Dinardo,
    
    362 S.W.3d 803
    , 811–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.);
    Triad Home Renovators, 
    Inc., 15 S.W.3d at 145
    . Accordingly, we overrule
    the Kaldises’ fourth issue.
    C.    Did the trial court err in denying the motion to compel production of
    documents?
    In their fifth issue, the Kaldises assert that the trial court erred when it
    denied their motion to compel production of documents more than two weeks after
    the trial court rendered its final summary judgment dismissing all of the Kaldises’
    claims. On appeal, the Kaldises have not analyzed Aurora’s discovery objections
    or the grounds for the Kaldises’ motion to compel production. Nor have the
    Kaldises provided any legal authorities in support of their assertion that the trial
    court erred in this discovery ruling. We conclude that the Kaldises have failed to
    adequately brief their contention that the trial court erred in denying their motion to
    compel production of documents. Therefore, the Kaldises have waived this
    complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 
    171 S.W.3d 323
    , 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (holding that,
    even though courts interpret briefing requirements reasonably and liberally, parties
    13
    asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis
    citing the record and authorities in support of the parties’ argument). Accordingly,
    we overrule the Kaldises’ fifth issue.10
    D.     Did the trial court err in including dismissal-with-prejudice language in
    its summary judgment?
    In their sixth issue, the Kaldises assert that the trial court erred by including
    dismissal-with-prejudice-language in its summary judgment. This argument was
    not raised in the trial court. By not voicing this complaint in the trial court, the
    Kaldises failed to preserve error as to this issue. See Torres v. Clark, No. 14-11-
    00750-CV, 
    2012 WL 1694607
    , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 15,
    2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Wohlhahrt v. Holloway, 
    172 S.W.3d 630
    , 639–40 (Tex.
    App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). Accordingly, we overrule the
    Kaldises’ sixth issue.
    E.     Did the trial court err in denying the emergency motion to set
    supersedeas bond or otherwise postpone eviction?
    In their seventh issue, the Kaldises assert that the trial court erred by denying
    “Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Court to Set Supersedeas Bond in the Form of
    Rent and/or, Otherwise, Postpone Plaintiffs’ Eviction from the Property” (the
    “Emergency Motion”). After the trial court rendered its final summary judgment,
    Aurora sought to enforce its judgment in the forcible-entry-and-detainer case,
    which had been made final by appeal.                 In response, the Kaldises filed the
    Emergency Motion, in which they asked the trial court to issue an order setting a
    supersedeas bond under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2 and 24.3, or to
    10
    On remand, this ruling does not prevent the trial court from revisiting the motion to compel as
    to the Kaldises’ wrongful-foreclosure claims, nor does this ruling preclude the parties from
    conducting further discovery regarding these wrongful-foreclosure claims. See Brewer &
    Pritchard, P.C. v. Johnson, 
    167 S.W.3d 460
    , 467 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet.
    denied).
    14
    order the Kaldises to pay rent to Aurora in an amount not to exceed $1,500 per
    month and to prohibit Aurora from evicting the Kaldises from the Property during
    the pendency of the appeal in this case.
    In the judgment from which the Kaldises appeal in the case under review,
    the trial court ordered that the Kaldises take nothing; and the trial court did not
    award any party any amount of money or court costs. The judgment is not for the
    recovery of money or property, nor is there any other apparent interest of the
    judgment creditor that needs protection pending appeal. In this context, the trial
    court did not err in declining to set an amount and type of security that the
    judgment debtor must post to supersede the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2,
    24.3; Bradshaw v. Sikes, No. 02-11-00169-CV, 
    2013 WL 978782
    , at *5 & n.12
    (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 14, 2013, pet. filed) (mem. op.).
    The main goal of the Emergency Motion was to effect an arrangement
    whereby the Kaldises could continue living on the Property and to postpone
    enforcement of the county court’s final judgment in the forcible-entry-and-detainer
    action pending the appeal in this case. The county court’s judgment is final by
    appeal and is not the subject of the case under review. In the Emergency Motion,
    the Kaldises did not argue or show that prohibiting the enforcement of the county
    court’s judgment would protect the district court’s jurisdiction in this case. The
    trial court did not err in denying the Emergency Motion.                 See In re Victor
    Enterprises, Inc., 
    308 S.W.3d 455
    , 457 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, orig.
    proceeding). Accordingly, we overrule the Kaldises’ seventh issue.11
    11
    The Kaldises have not briefed any arguments on appeal in which they challenge the trial
    court’s summary judgment as to the wrongful-eviction claim. Thus, there is no basis to disturb
    this part of the judgment. See Fish v. Marsters, 14-06-00129-CV, 
    2007 WL 1438555
    , at *10
    (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 17, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
    15
    IV. CONCLUSION
    There is a genuine fact issue as to whether written notice of the foreclosure
    sale was given to either of the Kaldises as required by Texas Property Code section
    51.002(b) and thus as to whether there was a defect in the foreclosure-sale
    proceedings. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to
    the Kaldises’ wrongful-foreclosure claims and related claims for declaratory relief.
    Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent it addresses these
    claims and we remand to the trial court for further proceedings. We conclude the
    Kaldises’ other appellate arguments are incorrect, and we therefore overrule their
    second issue and their fourth through seventh issues, as well as their third issue to
    the extent the third issue addresses claims other than the wrongful-foreclosure
    claims and related claims for declaratory relief. Thus, we affirm the remainder of
    the judgment.
    /s/    Kem Thompson Frost
    Chief Justice
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.
    16