Legal Opinion

Edwards v. Holleman

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1993No. D-3387PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue we address in this case is whether provisions of a note and deed of trust require the borrower to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of a trustee incurred by the lender in enforcing payment of the note if the deed of trust hen is not foreclosed. A divided court of appeals held that the lender was not entitled to recover such fees and expenses. 842 S.W.2d 704. We disagree.

Stephen Olin Holleman defaulted on his obligation to repay a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on his home, and the lender, Galveston Savings and Loan Association, gave notice of its intent to foreclose…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Braniff Investment Co. v. RobertsonTexas Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Braniff Inv. Co. v. RobertsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1935
  3. Edwards v. Holleman, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1992

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Anderson, Greenwood & Co. v. Martin, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2001
  2. Edwards v. Kaye, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
  3. Phillips v. AllumsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1994
  4. Edwards v. Holleman, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API