Cruce v. Eureka Life Insurance Co. of America
1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 7159, 696 S.W.2d 656 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Contractual provisions in a promissory note or deed of trust that expressly waive a borrower's right to receive notice of intent to accelerate a debt and notice of the acceleration itself are valid and enforceable under Texas law.
Facts:
- B.W. Cruce, Jr. executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust with Eureka Life Insurance Company of America.
- The promissory note contained a clause stating that the borrower 'expressly waives all notices, demands for payment, notices of intention to accelerate the maturity...'.
- The deed of trust similarly allowed Eureka to declare the entire debt due upon default, with Cruce 'expressly waiving presentment and demand for payment'.
- Cruce defaulted on an installment payment due on November 1, 1979.
- Eureka initiated foreclosure proceedings without first providing Cruce with notice of its intent to accelerate the debt or notice that the debt had been accelerated.
- On November 6, 1979, Eureka sent a notice of the trustee's sale to Cruce by certified mail, which was received and signed for at his address.
Procedural Posture:
- B.W. Cruce, Jr. sued Eureka Life Insurance Company of America in a Texas trial court for wrongful foreclosure.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of Eureka, denying Cruce any recovery.
- Cruce, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Eureka as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lender's failure to provide a borrower with notice of intent to accelerate a debt and notice of acceleration constitute wrongful foreclosure when the promissory note and deed of trust contain express contractual waivers of such notices?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, Justice
No. A lender's failure to provide notice of intent to accelerate or notice of acceleration does not constitute wrongful foreclosure where the borrower has contractually waived the right to such notices. The court found the waiver provisions in both the promissory note and the deed of trust to be explicit and clear. Relying on precedent, the court held that 'contractual waivers of notice provisions are valid and enforceable.' The court distinguished this case from others requiring notice, such as Ogden v. Gibraltar Savings Assoc., because those cases did not involve an express contractual waiver. Therefore, Eureka was not required to provide notice of its intent to accelerate or notice of the acceleration itself before proceeding with foreclosure.
Dissenting - Howell, Justice
Yes. A lender's failure to provide notice and an opportunity to cure constitutes wrongful foreclosure because the equitable principles requiring such actions cannot be contractually waived. The dissent argued that the right to receive a demand for a past-due installment and an opportunity to cure the default before acceleration is a protection derived from equity, not contract, designed to prevent the harsh remedy of forfeiture. Quoting Allen Sales & Servicenter, Inc. v. Ryan, the dissent maintained that 'equity abhors a forfeiture' and that these equitable rights are not subject to waiver via boilerplate language in loan documents. Furthermore, even if such rights could be waived, the waiver language used by Eureka was not sufficiently 'clear and unequivocal' to 'bring home' to the borrower the severe consequences of surrendering these fundamental protections.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of freedom of contract in Texas mortgage law, establishing that borrowers can validly waive significant common law and equitable notice protections related to debt acceleration. The ruling places a substantial burden on borrowers to read and understand all terms of their loan agreements, as courts will enforce clear waiver language even if it leads to a harsh result like foreclosure without prior warning. This case narrows the scope of equitable protections for borrowers, limiting key precedents like Ogden and Allen to situations where no explicit contractual waiver exists. Consequently, the legal focus in subsequent disputes often shifts from the lender's conduct to the precise wording and conspicuousness of the waiver clause itself.
Unlock the full brief for Cruce v. Eureka Life Insurance Co. of America