Background
After PNC Bank foreclosed on Roberto Avila Goitia’s Bexar County property in January 2025 and evicted him, Avila Goitia sued PNC. He asserted wrongful foreclosure, trespass to try title, breach of contract, fraud, statutory, and negligence claims arising from PNC’s loan servicing, foreclosure, and eviction conduct.
PNC moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that two earlier lawsuits barred the claims under res judicata. The trial court granted the motion and separately expunged two notices of lis pendens filed by Avila Goitia. He appealed the dismissal of his wrongful-foreclosure and trespass-to-try-title claims and challenged the expunction.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in dismissing the wrongful-foreclosure and trespass-to-try-title claims under Rule 91a. Although Avila Goitia had nonsuited a 2024 action with prejudice, the foreclosure and eviction had not yet occurred while that action was pending. Those later-arising claims were therefore not ripe in the earlier suit and could not be barred by res judicata on that basis.
The other cited lawsuit did not support Rule 91a dismissal because its dismissal occurred after the current action was filed, and establishing its preclusive effect required consideration of evidence attached to PNC’s motion. Rule 91a generally confines the court to the plaintiff’s pleadings and qualifying attached instruments, making such evidence more appropriate for summary judgment. The court nevertheless affirmed dismissal of all claims Avila Goitia did not challenge on appeal.
The court also affirmed the expunction of the lis pendens notices. Although the petition asserted real-property claims, Avila Goitia did not challenge the independent determination that he failed to establish their probable validity by a preponderance of the evidence. The court modified the expunction order to replace an incorrect cause number with 2025CI12849.
Key Takeaways
- Res judicata does not bar a claim that was not ripe when the earlier lawsuit was filed.
- A Rule 91a dismissal generally cannot rest on evidence submitted by the defendant to establish an affirmative defense.
- A party challenging expunction of a lis pendens must address every independent ground supporting the ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the procedural limits of Rule 91a when a defendant relies on res judicata. If preclusion cannot be established from the plaintiff’s pleading and permissible attachments, the defense ordinarily must be developed through summary-judgment procedures rather than an evidence-based Rule 91a motion.
It also illustrates that pleading a claim affecting title is not alone sufficient to preserve a lis pendens. The claimant must establish the probable validity of the real-property claim and must challenge an adverse finding on that issue on appeal.