Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2004

Elijah W. Ratcliff v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. as Successor in Interest to Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., F/K/A INMC Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

Elijah W. Ratcliff v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. as Successor in Interest to Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., F/K/A INMC Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 12, 2004

Elijah W. Ratcliff v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. as Successor in Interest to Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., F/K/A INMC Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-03-271 CV

____________________



ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF, Appellant



V.



INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., as successor in interest to

INDYMAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC.,

f/k/a/ INMC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellees




On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19,888




MEMORANDUM OPINION

IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., as successor in interest to IndyMac Mortgage Holdings Inc., f/k/a INMC Mortgage Holdings Inc., filed suit against Elijah Ratcliff alleging conversion and seeking possession of a manufactured home, described as "a 1998 Redman, Danville, Label/Seal No. PFS0463962, Serial No. 12528971 (the 'Collateral')." IndyMac moved for summary judgment and the motion was granted. From that judgment, Ratcliff brings this appeal.

Ratcliff's brief fails to identify a basis for reversing the trial court's judgment. Ratcliff did not offer any summary judgment evidence in response to IndyMac's motion. The day after the judgment was signed, Ratcliff filed "Objections" to the motion. The record does not reflect he did so with leave of the court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a. Regardless, the only evidence attached to the "Objections" is a copy of a certified mail receipt. Ratcliff does not refer this court to any evidence refuting IndyMac's summary judgment evidence of its right to the Collateral. Although Ratcliff contends no "admissible summary judgment evidence" was offered, he does not identify the evidence that was allegedly inadmissible or provide a reason it was inadmissible. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Ratcliff's issues are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM



Submitted on June 11, 2004

Opinion Delivered August 12, 2004





Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.