Motion for Summary Judgment in TREVOR COLE COMMERCIAL CORP OF CT vs. MOMENTUM FORT WORTH INVESTMENT, LLC, et al| Trellis.Law

On July 01, 2022 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Trevor Cole Commercial Corp Of Ct, and Hassanally, Individually, Abdul M., Momentum Fort Worth Investment, Llc, for CNTR CNSMR COM DEBT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
12/22/2023 10:44 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Debra Clark DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-07479

TREVOR COLE COMMERCIAL CORP. $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF CT. $
Plaintiff, $
$
$
$
v $
$ 134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
$
s
$
MOMENTUM FORT WORTH $
INVESTMENT, LLC, and ABDUL M. $
HASSANALLY $
Defendant. s DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEF'ENDANTS' MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, Defendants MOMENTUM FORT WORTH INVESTMENT, LLC and

ABDUL M. HASSANALLY, and file this their Motion for Summary Judgment, and in support of

same would show the Court as follows:

AND SUMMARY OF THE

1 Plaintifls claims are nothing more than a shakedown attempt after Plaintiffs failed to

uphold their end of the contractual bargain. Simply put, Plaintiff promised that it would

secure a commercial loan offer for Defendants which totaled $ 15,000,000 and it failed to

do so. Yet, Plaintiff seeks recovery against Defendants for breach of the unfulfilled

contract, and unfounded personal guarantor liability based on this purported breach of
contract when no personal guaranty exists. Plaintifls failure to secure a loan offer as

promised demonstrates a fundamental lack of consideration and failure to perform all

DEFENDANTS, MoTIoN Ton SuuvTaRY JUDGMENT Pacn I I
conditions precedent. As such, Plaintifls claims against the Defendants must fail as a

matter of law.

II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

2. Pursuant to TExes Ruln oF CIVIL PRoceouRe 166a(d), the summary judgment evidence

upon which this Motion relies is offered in the following exhibits attached hereto and fully

incorporated herein by reference.

Exhibit A: Affidavit of Abdul Hassanally (hereinafter "Hassanally Affidavit");

Exhibit l: November 5,2021Letter of lnterest from Plaintiff TREVOR COLE

COMMERCIAL CORP. OF CT and Defendant MOMENTUM

FORT WORTH INVESTMENT, LLC (hereinafter "Agreement");

Exhibit 2: January 14, 2022 Conditional Loan Approval from American

Savings Life Insurance Company (hereinafter "CLA").

III.
FACTS

-t On or about November 9, 2021, Defendant MOMENTUM FORT WORTH

INVESTMENT, LLC ("MOMENTUM") entered into an agreement with Plaintiff in which

Plaintiff agreed to secure financing and to procure MOMENTUM a commercial loan of

not less than $ 15,000,000.00. See Exhibit 1, Agreement; see also fl 4, Exhibit A, Hassanally

Affidavit.

4. Plaintiff s lawsuit is based on its false claims that it fulfilled its contractual obligations by

securing this financing from American Savings Life Insurance Company in early 2022. See

generally Plaintiff's Original Petition. Specifically, Plaintiff references an executed

DBFENDANTS' MoTIoN FoR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pacr | 2
Conditional Loan Approval between Defendant and American Savings Life Insurance

Company as fulfilment of its contractual obligations. See Exhibit 2, CLA. However, after

written discovery has been conducted, and initial disclosures exchanged, a cursory

examination of this Conditional Loan Approval demonstrates that Plaintiff only secured a

commercial loan totaling $14,500,000, half a million dollars less than what Plaintiff and

Defendants had bargained for. See Exhibit 2, CLA; see also fl 5, Exhibit A, Hassanally

Affidavit.

5 Ultimately, the insufficient loan failed to close through no fault of Defendants. See fl 6,

Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit. Because American Savings Life Insurance Company

failed to perform all inspections that it demanded prior to closing, the deal was never

consummated. See 1T6, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit.

6. Despite procuring an insufficient loan for Defendants that never closed because of the

lender's failure to perform, Plaintiff has filed suit and is demanding payment pursuant to

the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants, and seeking personal liability against

Defendant ABDUL HASSANALLY. See fl 7, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit.

7 Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Plaintiff s failure to perform

pursuant to the contract, Defendants have negated a key element of each of Plaintiff s

theories of recovery, and Defendants are entitled to a take-nothing judgment as a matter of

law.

DEFENDANTS, MoTIoN FoR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE | 3
IV
ARGIIMENTS & AUTHO RITIES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

8 There is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the causes of action set forth

below, and Defendants are entitled to a take-nothing judgment against Plaintiffs

claims as a matter of law.

9 Pursuant to Tpxes Rule oF CIVIL PnocpouRn l66a(c), a motion for summary judgment

shall be granted if the pleadings and summary judgment evidence show that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. TEx. R. Ctv. P. 166a(c); Blackv. Victoria Lloyds Ins. Co., 797 S.W.2d20,23 (Tex.

1990). If a movant's motion and summary judgment proof facially establish a right to

judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the non-movant to raise a material fact

issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment. HBO, A Div. of Time Warner Entertainment

Co., L.P. v. Haruison, 983 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).

In the absence of establishing a fact issue, the movant is entitled to summary judgment as

a matter of law.

10 A party resisting a claim may establish that no genuine issue of fact exists, justif ing a

"take-nothing" judgment as a matter of law by negating at least one of the key elements of

each of the claimant's theories of recovery . Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez,941 S.W.2d

910,911 (Tex.1997).

BRn,q,cH or CoNrRAcr

11. Elements of breach of contract are: (1) existence of valid contract between plaintiff and

defendant; (2) plaintiff performed or tendered performance under contract; (3) defendant

breached contract; and (4) plaintiff was damaged as result of breach. Holloway v. Dekkers,

DEFENDANTS' MoTIoN ToR SUITITaRY JUDGMENT PAGE | 4
380 S.W.3d 3I5,324 (Tex. App.-Dallas 20l2,no pet.). To prove abreach of contract, the

plaintiff must establish that it performed, tendered performance of, or was excused from

performing its contractual obligations. See, e.g., Krayemv. USRP (PAC), L.P.,194 S.W.3d

91 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). A party who does not perform its obligation

cannot enforce the remaining terms of the contact against the other party. Interceramic,

Inc. v. S. Orient R.R. Co.,999 S.W.2 dg20,924 (Tex.App.-Texarkana l999,pet.denied)

12. Under the traditional rule, parties are entitled to an "exact" performance of their agreement.

See Kitten v. Vaughn,397 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1965, no writ). For

example, in Kitten, a contract calling for a first lien note of $160,000 with a single lender

was not sufficiently performed by a tender of a first lien note of $ 100,000 with one lender

and an additional second lien note of $60,000 with a second lender. Failure to fully perform

or to tender full perfonnance prevents a party from enforcing the contract. See Benson v.

Harrell,324 5.W.2d,6t20,623(Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth Ig5g,writ ref d n.r.e.).

13 Here, Plaintifls breach of contract must fail because it cannot that it performed, tendered

performance of, or was excused from performing its contractual obligations. See, e.g.,

Krayem v. USRP (PAC), L.P.,194 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). The

Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant clearly contemplates a $15,000,000 loan, and

nothing less:

D#; ltlnvarr&er&,?fr21

slgg:[: &sdu] ]dej*d t+8*€snsllt'

E$ Corrn@kertunl{s,0m,000

DEFENDANTS' Moltolq FoR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE | 5
foff$iA?B{:. M*men$im F6d Wo'th lny€ttrne$l, LLG

froaEdy.*ddres*i Hstiday l$rl
1S0 Aft6ma6d $l$d Ea*t
fert\ifurtfi, ?e,,ffis

Lps*Ard+qs $16,@.sO0

Lnsn lo \hlu$: €ff6
lrrlere$t Rat*l S.4$%. +30 Ssy Libsr {"0$ iloo*.

Is$r: 3S MrY{h$ {lrltsr€si oaly)

utxn ls$lsnco of lhe ban oilsrEtt a{ rpl }Elg {Ea $IAffi6.S0q ry TSf, sr fra lffmr{ot} snd y6{ hsdh
sut, afi{* llK haft ds€$ $d do,s€ fer arry resofl stlKf thafl YCCk wil[tutr
*tist k" lhen TC* *il| ba entithd io * ltuR'Er*ak*p Fre'cf nor t€Rs
!lr*n 1.ST{" *ft *r}f$ svsfit. }iFu ffirissnt {s tlre *liq *! aBptrtri*l* ffiu{|lsFt*"

See Exhibit 1, Agreement; see also !f 8, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit.

t4. Despite the clear and unambiguous language of the contract, Plaintiff only procured a loan

from American Savings Life Insurance in the amount of $14,500,000:

Proposed lnen: $;{,500,000in fir$t Ffsitgo{l lian al ?.9Sft ftr*d rate- icrerestsnfy, li.rlth
E i-yrr h*llnsn; sns {1} opti*rrel l'gear e*ic**lhn thereof, upan
o*Yftent *f a I et, extcnsisn fee

See Exhibit2, CLA; Exhibit l, Agreement; see also fl 9, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit.

l5 Defendants are entitled to an "exact" performance of their agreement. See Kitten v. Vaughn,

397 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1965, no writ). Just as in Kitten, Plaintiff

failed to perform in the exact manner contemplated in the contract. The loan procured by

Plaintiff was short of the bargained for amount. Whether this is construed as a failure of

conditions precedent, a failure of consideration, a prior material breach of the contract, or

a simple failure to perform, the result is the same: Plaintiffs breach of contract fails as a

matter of law, Plaintiff should take nothing.

76 Moreover, the deficient loan procured by Plaintiff never closed through no fault of

Defendants. See fl 10, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit. Specifically, the lender, American

Savings Life Insurance Company, represented that the loan would close upon an inspection

of the Defendants' property. See fl 10, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit. However, no such

DEFENDANTS' MOTTON T.oR SUNTvT^q.RY JUDGMENT PAGE | 6
inspection ever occurred, and the loan never closed. See fl 10, Exhibit A, Hassanally

Affidavit. Simply put, Plaintiff procured a deficient loan that was never consummated, and

accordingly, did not perform its contractual obligations.

17. In summary, a breach of contract claim requires a plaintiff performed or tendered

performance under contract. Holloway v. Dekkers, 380 S.W.3d 315, 324 (Tex, App.-
Dallas 2012, no pet.). Plaintiff has not and cannot demonstrate that it procured a

commercial loan of not less than $15,000,000. See Exhibit 1, Agreement; see also Exhibit

2, CLA. Defendants were entitled to the exact benefit of their bargain, and when Plaintiff

failed to adequately perform, Defendants were excused from performing their contractual

obligations as a matter of law. See Benson v. Haruell, 324 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tex. Civ.

App.-Fort Worth 1959, writ ref d n.r.e.)

18 Accordingly, for these reasons, Plaintiff s claim for breach of contract fails as a matter of

law.

RRnacn on Gu.rRaNrv:

19. To recover on a breach of a guaranty agreement, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence

and ownership of the guaranty agreement; (2) the terms of the underlying contract by the

holder; (3) the occurrence of the conditions upon which liability is based; and (4) the failure

or refusal to perform the promise by the guarantor. Jain v. Plainscapital Bank,No. 10-15-

00396-CV,2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3713, at *1 (Tex. App.-Waco Apr. 26,2017,no pet.)

(citing Gold's Gym Franchising LLC v. Brewer,400 S.W.3d 156, 158 (Tex. App.-Dallas

2013, no pet.).

20 Plaintiff should take nothing by its breach of personal guaranty claim against Defendants

because 1) there is no personal guaranty agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, and

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE | 7
2) even if such agreement existed, Plaintiff failed to perform the underlying condition of

the contract that was allegedly guaranteed.

2l Plaintiff claims that "[u]nder the terms of the Agreement and the Conditional Loan

Approval, Defendants became unconditionally liable for fully payment due to Plaintiff s

performance of all obligations under the Agreement." See Plaintiff's Original Petition, at

4. But nothing the in Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants constitutes a personal

guaranty, and there is no other document constituting a personal guaranty between Plaintiff

and Defendant ABDUL HASSANALLY. See generallyExhibit 1, Agreement; see also fl

I l, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit. The Agreement is silent as to any personal obligations

undertaken by Defendant ABDUL HASSANALLY. See generallyExhibit 1, Agreement;

see also fl 11, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit. Moreover, the signature block on the

Agreement clearly contemplates Defendant MOMENTUM as to the party to be bound:

l ffiE) hereby acknou*$adge an# agre* tc,tt36 fih{\le fafffls, an# alitfi$i;B
TCS +r'rts fnvs€tsre te sbiah any ffedit inf*ff$8tkn thet r*8y b€
r*qLrlred"

l*x.;h* Fsrlqrb{rft fl,l*!*e, U,G

ff nropeny {if irdict$ed}: lnd{vlduql
.4$dd Jtuttodtf

Borrar-r.rsrJFri n*fi El'$ Sigfrskrr€ ; 8*neruuafs Sigta{urie

S,e'dul l!{6jid |*s**grallS

Hgf?l€ Flnnt€dll f'{ea'n* F*lntsd

fr,ara. rl /0sf?fi?1

See Exhibit 1, Agreement; see also fl 11, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit.

Clearly, the Agreement is a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant MOMENTUM, not

Defendant ABDUL HASSANALLY. See Exhibit 1, Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff

cannot show the existence of any personal guaranty that would create individual liability

as to Defendant ABDUL HASSANALLY.

DEFENDANTS, MOTION FoR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE | 8
22 Plaintiff further attempts to rely on the Conditional Loan Approval as a basis to support

personal liability. See Plaintiff's Original Petition, at 4. While that document does refer to

Defendant ABDUL HASSANALLY as a personal guarantor, it is not a binding contract,

and Plaintiff is not aparty or owner of that agreement. See Exhibit2, CLA; see also fl 12,

Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit Accordingly, Plaintiff s breach of guaranty claims must

fail.

23 Even if a personal guaranty agreement did exist, Plaintifls claims must fail because of

Plaintiffs failure to perform its underlying contractual obligations as described

hereinabove. Plaintiff must show "the occurrence of the conditions upon which liability is

based." See Gold's Gym Franchising LLC v. Brewer,4O0 S.W.3d 156, 158 (Tex. App.-
Dallas 2013, no pet.) Here, Plaintiff procured an insufficient loan for Defendants that never

closed because of the lender's failure to perform, thus excusing any further contractual

performance of Defendants. See Exhibit 1, Agreement; see also Exhibit2,CLA, see also !J

13, Exhibit A, Hassanally Affidavit There is no breach of the underlying Agreement, and

no personal guaranty upon which Plaintiff can sue, which is fatal to Plaintiff s breach of
guaranty claim. As such, Defendants are entitled to a take-nothing judgment as a matter of

law.

CONCLUSION

24 Simply put, Plaintiff is attempting to recover on a Contract which it did not perform and

on a personal guaranty which does not exist. Plaintiff cannot promise to procure a loan of

not less than $15,000,000, and then claim that its procured loan of $14,500,000 that never

closed because of acts of the lender, and then claim adequate performance. Moreover,

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE | 9
Plaintiff s addition of its breach of guaranty claim demonstrates the frivolous nature of this

suit given the complete absence of any document relating to Plaintiff imputing personal

liability to Defendant ABDUL HASSNALLY. For the reasons described hereinabove,

Defendants request that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, and enter

take-nothing judgment as to all claims asserted by the Plaintiff TREVOR COLE
COMMERCIAL CORP. OF CT.

u.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants MOMENTUM FORT WORTH

INVESTMENT, LLC and ABDUL M. HASSANALLY pray that the Court grant Defendants'

Motion for Summary Judgment, and enter a take-nothing judgment as to Plaintiff TREVOR COLE

COMMERCIAL CORP. OF CT's claims, and for such other and further relief, at law or in equity,

to which Defendants MOMENTUM FORT WORTH INVESTMENT, LLC and ABDUL M.

HASSANALLY may show themselves to be justly entitled.

DBFENDANTS' MoTIoN FoR SUMMARY JUDGMBNT PAGE | 10
Respectfully submitted,

COOK KEITH & DAVIS,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Stephen W. Davis

STEPHEN W. DAVIS
State Bar No.24066792
stephen@cookkeithdavis. com
ETHAN M. HERREMA
State Bar No. 24106088
ethan@co okke ithdavi s. c o m
6688 North Central Expressway, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75206
(2r4) 368-4686
(21 4) 593 -57 13 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certifu that on the22"d day of December 2023,a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing was served upon all parties herein in accordance with the Tpxns Rules oF CIVIL

PRocepuRn.

Patrick Primavera
Law OrrrcES oF PATRTcK PRIMAVERA
32731Egypt Lane, Suite 704
Magnolia, Texas 77354

/s/Ethan M. Herrema
ETHAN M. HERREMA

DEFENDANTS' MoTIoN ToR SuuuanY JUDGMENT PAGE | 11
ExHIBIT A
CA tiSli I'f O. IIC-:: -$"1 17!/-

'f lrEVOlt^ COl.li COM It lillCll;\l, (-ORP. IN 1'lln DIS"fltl(*r COt:l{"t'
$
OF C'I.. $
l'laitti11. $
$
$
$
v $
$ I 3{II' .TUDICIAI.. DIS'TRI CT
ns

$
$
MOS{ ENTLJ;\{ FOII]' WOITTT I t\
INY[:STS{EN'I', LLC, and AtsDtil. }t t\
IIASSANAI,I,Y $
Dcleudant. $ DAI.I.AS CO TJ N'I'V,'I'EXAS

D OC l-,A I{A'FION OF A B Dt.l L i\{. I'IASSA NA t,t,Y

I . "N'ly nanre is Abdul it4. Hassanally. I anr ovcr t\\renty-one (21 ) years of agc. ol'sorttrd rnind.

irave never been convicted of a felony. and am lllly cotnpetent to ntake and execrtte this

alfldavit. I anr a Defbnclant and an authorized representative of MOMUNTUM FORT

WORTI{ INV[:S'I-N.{EN'[. LLC. Deferrdant. and as such. I have personal knorvledge olthe

facts stated irr this affidavit. rvhich are all true and comect.

:. "l am a Del'endant and an authorized representative of MOMh.NTUM FORT WORTH

INVESTI\{ENT. LI-C. Defendant: and I have or a person under rny'supenision lras care.

custody'. and corrlrol of all records concernirrg Plaintiff TREVOR COLE COMN4ERCIAL

CORP. OF CT.

"1. "l am a custodian of the records of Defendant |\.{O\,'1ENTLJI\{ FORT WORTH

INVESTMEN"T. LLC. Attached hcrcto are fi\'e (5) pages cf lecouds h'orl Defendant

\'10\{I:NTU\,1 FOR1'WORTI{ lNVliSl'l\{l;NT. l.l.C. Tlrese said fir,e [5) pages of records

are kept b)' p.t ndnnl \.IIOMH.NTUM FORT WORTIi INVESTN'IENT. LLCI in the regirlar

rr(\lrrse ol'husiness. and it \\'as llrr' regrrlar corlrse of business of an ernplol'ee Defendant

l)r t t. rrt.rr r()\ ()F Alult t. ]1. Il.rss.rl.rt.t.t Pagc I I
\{O\,,1l:N l't ivl FOI{l' \\jOlt'fll IN\i1,Sl"\'11:N'f. l"l-('. it'ilh knori'ltdge ol tlt* itcl. e\ilrrt.

conrliiion. ilpiniolt. or ditgnosis. recordcd 1o rttnke llic t'ccorcl nr to lrilttstttit infi:rrtrltion

thcrt.ol' to bc includcd in srrch rr:cord: lrrd the rccord rvas tttitcle at or l)cilr tlter lirtte or

rclsonabl,r'soon thcrcalter. l'he records attachcd hcreto are the original orcxact dtrplicates

olthe original

l "Ort or abttut Noverlber 9. ?A21. Dc{bndarrt lvlot!'I[tN'|LJM f0li'f WOIIl'll
INVESTI\.{ENT. Ll-C ("IVION4HNTUM") errtcrecl into an agreernent rvith Plaintiff in rvhich

Plaintitf agreecl to secure iirrancirrg and to procurc MOMIIN'|IJM a corttmcrcial loan of not

less tlran S 15.000.000.00.

) "Plaintitls larvsuir isbasecl on its lhlse clainrs that it firltllled ils conlracttral obligations by

secrrrine, tlris llnancing linnr Amcrican Savings Life Irrsurance Cotrpany in earll' 2022.

Speci{icall1.. PlainrilTrelererrces an executed Conditional l-oan Approval benl'eert Det-endant

arrd Anrerican Sar,ings Lile Insr.rrance Cornpanv as fulfilment of its contractual obligations.

I"lon,ever- the Conditiorral Loan Approval dernonstrates thai Plaintiff on11" securecl a

conrrnercial loan totaling S14"500.000. $500.000.00 less than rvhat Plaintiff and Defendar.rts

had bargained for.

6 "tjltirnatell.. the insufficieul loan faiied to close through rro lhtrlt of Defenclatlts. Because

Arnericarr Sar,ings Lil'e insurance Cornpanl.' failed lo perftrnrr ali inspections that it derlanded

prior tcl closin{, the deal \\'as never cottsttnrtlatecl.

- "Despite procuring an insuiJlcient loatt lbr Defendanls that ttever closed becartse of the

lclcler's failure io perfcrrrr, Plainliff has tjled suit artd is dernanditlg pa,vnient pursuanl to the

corltract [etteen Plaintiff and Defendants. and seekirtg persorral liability against Defendant

AI]DI jI.IiASSANALLY.

l)t r I \t{ \ n(}\ ttl.'AI}DI L l\1. H rrs,rr rt t.r I'agr I f
8. ""Ilre Agreettreut benveen Plaintill'and l)e lbndant clearly contnrrrplatcs a $15.000.000 l6arr.

ancl nothing less.

9. "f)espite tltc clear and urtarnbiguor.rs larrguage of lhc contrnct. Plaintill"only procurcd a loan

from r\rnerican savings Lilb lnsurance in tlre arnount of $ 14,500.000.

l0' "illoteover. the delicient tour procured by Ptainrill ncvcr closed through na fault of

Dqfendants. Specifically, lhe lencler, American Savings Li1'e Jnsurance Ciornpany.

represented that the loan n'ould close upon an inspection
clf the Defendallts' propert!.
Holet'er. rto sttch inspection e\ier occrlrred, and tlrc loan never closed. Sirnply put, Plainrilf
procured a deficiertt loan that \vas never consru)unated. ancl accordingiy. did not perfonn its

contraclual obl i gations.

I l. "Nothing the in Agteenrent betn,eerr Plaintifland Delendants constitutes a personal guaranty.

and there is no other dclcument constituting a personal guaranty between Plaintiff and lnyself.

The Agreemertt is silent as to any personal obligations undertaken by rne.

12. "PlaintitT fiurher attetnpts to rely on the Conditional Loan Approval as a basis to support

personal liability. \Vhile tltat docurnent does refbr to rne as a personal guarantor. it is not a

binding contract. and Plaintiff is nCIt a party or o\\:ner of that agreelnenl.

l-1. "Plaintiff procured an insufficient loan for Defendants that never closed because of the

lender's lailure to perfonn. thus excusing any tirrtlrer contractual perlonnance of
.
Defendants."

[The rernainder of this page was left blank intentionalll']

l)t-t t..rtr"r t.lt)\ rlt:r r{$l)l l, tr'|. Il.rsr.rr.rt.l.r I'age ! 3
Mv n;rrne is i\bilul i\'1. ilitssaunlll'. ir,{,"- clntcol'hirtlr is Septrrnberl?" l$47 arrclln;* lcklrerss

is lOti [:.asr Altnnrcsa [.lh,el.. l"ort \\1orth. "l"exas ?(rl]4. Lirrited Stltcs. t tJtcllrc ttrtelcr pcnnlty nf'

pt:{ury that thc li:rcgoing sti{telrlents ilre lnlr rnd eorrect

Bl':
sl. HASSANAI,I,Y, Dcc l:rrunf

Hxecuted bf i\BDtjL tr.l. HASSANAI_I-.y in

Countl''. Sfate af - ort llte *-EL$} * da.v crl' Decetnber-

30:-i.

t
lll:

Case Info

Judge

TILLERY, DALE Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 18, 2024

Case Filing Date

July 01, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: TREVOR COLE COMMERCIAL CORP OF CT vs. MOMENTUM FORT WORTH INVESTMENT, LLC, et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties