From my home state, comes this decision of the First Court of Appeals in Wells Fargo as Trustee v Ballestas TX 1st Ct App.. The gist is that no, Wells Fargo, you aren’t entitled to special rules, and you can’t litigate the same issues over and over until you get a decision you like.
This opinion was written by somebody I know to be very smart, the Honorable Jane Bland, as she was a lawyer at the first law firm I worked for as a law clerk and then a baby associate, then she was a state court judge when I left Houston. Now she’s apparently on the 1st Ct. Appeals in Houston. A little snippet:
Wells Fargo asserts that collateral estoppel is inapplicable to rulings on standing as a matter of law. But, the trial court did not order that Wells Fargo is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of its standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, it ordered that Wells Fargo was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of its ownership of the promissory note because the parties litigated that very issue in the prior proceeding. Ownership of the promissory note was not merely a jurisdictional fact but was an essential element of Wells Fargo‘s request for a court order for foreclosure and of the Ballestas‘ claim for a declaratory judgment that Wells Fargo did not own the note, decided on the merits.