Bank Did Not Alter Right To Foreclose By Agreeing To Work With The Debtor After Bankruptcy Dismissal


In Branch Banking and Trust Company v. TCI Luna Ventures, LLC, BB&T appealed a temporary injunction order prohibiting it from foreclosing on two properties owned by TCI Luna. No. 05-12-00653-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 1745 (Tex. App. – Dallas, February 21, 2013, no pet. history). The bank owned a $10 million promissory note that was secured by deeds of trust on twelve properties, including the two that were subject of the temporary injunction order. TCI Luna went into default. BB&T foreclosed on three of TCI Luna's properties and sent notices of foreclosure for six more before TCI Luna filed for bankruptcy. While in bankruptcy, TCI Luna and BB&T discussed TCI Luna voluntarily requesting a dismissal of its bankruptcy with prejudice, deeds in lieu of foreclosure for some properties in return for lien releases on other properties, and BB&T obtaining and delivering to TCI Luna appraisals on each property as part of BB&T's foreclosure on any property. After TCI Luna obtained a voluntary dismissal of its bankruptcy, BB&T foreclosed on two properties and sent notices of foreclosure on four more properties, including the two made the basis of the injunction order.

TCI Luna responded by filing a lawsuit contending that the parties formed an enforceable agreement that limited BB&T's right to foreclose on the properties in exchange for TCI Luna requesting a dismissal of its bankruptcy proceeding. At the injunction hearing, TCI Luna's representative consistently stated that the parties agreed to meet after dismissal of the bankruptcy to try to resolve disputes that arised regarding property values. The parties never agreed to the amount of credit against the outstanding loan balance upon foreclosure. The parties agreed to meet after dismissal and attempt to agree on which properties would go to the bank and which would be kept by the borrower. There was no agreement before dismissal other than an agreement to meet in the future.

The court of appeals found that these statements were not sufficient to prove a valid or enforceable contract. They were merely an agreement to agree in the future that is unenforceable. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's temporary injunction because the plaintiff had not shown a probable right of recovery.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Winstead PC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.