Texas Business Court Decision – July 28, 2026

Nos. 25-BC01B-0064/26-BC01B-0019  Revere Tactical Opportunities Fund IV LP, et al. v Monte K. Lee-Wen and Westside Flats Owner, LLC, et al. v. Revere Tactical Opportunities Fund IV, LP, et al. (First Division, Judge Whitehill) 2026 Tex. Bus. 51

Foreclosure – Notices of Intent to Sell at Foreclosure.

Background. Westside Flats defaulted on a loan made by Revere Tactical; the loan was secured by two properties, and Revere sought to foreclose on them. Although a provision of  the deeds of trust and Property Code Sec. 51.002(b)(3) required Revere to send the notices of intent to sell the properties at a foreclosure sale by “certified mail,” Revere sent them by email and UPS next-day delivery. It is undisputed that Westside received the notices no later than it would have received a notice sent by certified mail. Revere served notice of the intent to sell on CG Land, LLC  (who had pledged one of the parcels) by addressing it to Casoro Group, LLC. It is undisputed that Casoro Group received the notice and that the deed of  trust designated it and its address as CG Sunset’s “c/o” address.

Issues:

(1)  Did Revere’s failure to send the notices by certified mail materially breach the contract, cause a wrongful foreclosure, and create Westside’s right to set aside the foreclosure sale? Held: No.

(2) Was the notice to CG Land sufficient? Held: Yes.

(3) Is Revere entitled to partial summary judgment because Westside did not timely give notice of the defect of service? Held: No, in light of the court’s resolution of Issue 1.

Discussion.

1. The parties’ contract provided that all notices were to be in writing “and shall be considered as properly given if” they were given to a third party commercial delivery service for same day or next day delivery. While another provision called for certified mail delivery, the two provisions did not conflict because the provision on which Revere relies says that notices delivered by overnight mail “shall be considered as properly given,”  thus showing the parties contemplated that strict compliance with the certified mail requirement was not needed if commercial delivery produced an equivalent result. Notice by UPS overnight delivery was sufficient. As to the question of whether the notice complied with Property Code Sec. 51.002(b)(3)’s terms requiring certified mail notice of sale, the case law distinguishes between notice of intent to sell (for which alternative service suffices if it provides timely notice) and notice of a completed sale. Since this was a notice of intent to sell, the overnight delivery sufficiently  complied with the Code.
2. On the issue of notice to CG Sunset Land, LLC’s proper address, the notice went to CG’s “c/o” address  as shown in the deed of trust, and it undisputed that Casoro group and defendant Lee-Wen received it. Notice to an agent is notice to the principal when acting in the scope of their employment, so, as a matter of law, CG Sunset Land received the notice; omitting their name from the address line was immaterial.
3. With respect to Revere’s traditional motion for partial summary judgment which argues that Westside cannot complain about Revere’s failure to use certified mail because Westside did not give timely notice of the defect, the court’s resolution of the notice issue as set out above “obviates the court’s need to decide Revere’s condition precedent issues at this time,” and the motion is  denied without prejudice.