law-breach-of-promissory-note | promissory note suits | breach of contract claim |

ELEMENTS OF BREACH OF PROMISSORY NOTE

To prove its promissory-note claim, Pinglia Investments had to establish (1) there was a note, (2) Pinglia
Investments was the legal owner and holder of the note, (3) Sandhu was the maker of the note, and (4) a
certain balance was due and owing on the note.  Blankenship v. Robins, 899 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex. App.-
Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ).  To prove its claim, Pinglia Investments presented a copy of the note and
an affidavit from Sumer Pinglia, stating that the copy of the note was true and correct.  A photocopy of a
promissory note, attached to an affidavit in which the affiant swears that the photocopy is a true and correct
copy of the original note, is proper summary-judgment proof to establish the existence of the note.  Id.  The
payee establishes ownership of the note when he attests in an affidavit that he is the owner of the note,
attaches a sworn “true and correct" copy of the original note to his affidavit, the note shows on its face it was
issued to him, and there is no summary-judgment proof showing the note has ever been pledged, assigned,
transferred, or conveyed.  Id. (citing Zarges v. Bevan, 652 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Tex. 1983)).  When the defendant
does not deny the genuineness of his signature on the note, he is established as the maker.  Id. (citing
Groschke v. Gabriel, 824 S.W.2d 607, 610 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied)).  
Sandhu v. Pinglia Investments of Texas, LLC (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 25, 2009)(Seymore)
(
commercial real estate transaction: financing of purchase of shopping center, breach of promissory note,
summary judgment procedure,
sufficiency of response to PMSJ, affirmative defenses not properly asserted in
response to Plaintiff's motion, proof of balance due and damages in note suit, challenges to summary judgment
evidence,
affidavit conclusory)
Decision: TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Charles Seymore     
Panel members: Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore   
14-08-00184-CV Raghbir Sandhu v. Pinglia Investments of Texas, LLC and Sumer Pinglia  
Appeal from 164th District Court of Harris County

CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS  

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE