Frias v. Sovran HHF Storage Holdings, LLC (2016)
Docket: 14-15-00376-CV · Decided: September 20, 2016 · Opinion: Sharon McCally, J.
The complete eight-page court-issued opinion was retrieved from the public PDF at source_url
on 2026-10-17. It is a memorandum opinion, not an invented reporter citation.
Facts and holding
The storage operator sold Frias’s goods without a foreclosure judgment and sought summary judgment based on a purported rental agreement. Frias swore he had never signed that agreement. That factual denial was competent, nonconclusory evidence. Because Property Code § 59.041 requires a foreclosure judgment absent the qualifying contractual lien, the court reversed summary judgment on DTPA and trespass-to-personal-property claims and remanded (pp. 4–6, 8).
The court affirmed summary judgment on theft and conversion because Frias did not identify evidence of the challenged demand-and-refusal elements or assign the relevant legal error (pp. 6–7). It did not adjudge the sale valid or the operator liable on the remanded claims.
Scope and current-law check
This is direct authority on the prerequisite for a nonjudicial storage sale and the effect of
disputed authorization. It does not decide priority over a perfected lender, a purchaser’s good
faith, or whether § 59.007 cleared a particular third-party claim. The current official
Property Code ch. 59, including
§§ 59.005–59.007 and 59.041, was retrieved on 2026-10-17. Full subsequent history, later judicial
treatment and all intervening legislative changes remain needs_verification; retrieval of the
opinion does not establish a good-law badge.
Applies in →
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify applicable current law before acting.