Maria Huerta v. Axiom Acquisition Ventures, LLC

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00066-CV

MARIA HUERTA, Appellant
V.
AXIOM ACQUISITION VENTURES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1182993

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Axiom Acquisition Ventures, LLC filed suit against appellant
Maria Huerta to collect on Huerta’s defaulted credit debt. In what we construe as a
single appellate issue, pro se appellant Maria Huerta challenges the trial court’s
judgment in favor of Axiom. 1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court as

1
Huerta’s appellate brief has no “issues presented” section, but the sub-header under her
“argument” section is labeled: “Huerta’s complaint state[d] a claim for violations of the FDCPA
[Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
because she allege[d] that Axiom misrepresented the amount she owed[.]” FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.
challenged on appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

Huerta’s bank, BBVA, extended her credit, which she used to make
purchases. Huerta defaulted on the amount she owed under credit, and Axiom
acquired the bill of sale on the defaulted debt. In March 2022, Axiom filed suit
against Huerta, seeking to recover the $26,322.39 due on Huerta’s loan. Huerta
filed an answer, which included the following statement, “I do not have any
responsibility for the debt you are trying to collect. . . . Stop all other
communication with me and with this address, and record that I dispute having
any obligation for this debt.” After filing her answer, Huerta did not otherwise
participate in the proceedings; there has been no allegation that Huerta did not
receive notice as required under any of the relevant rules.

A nonjury trial was held, but Huerta did not appear. On January 12, 2023,
the trial court signed a judgment in favor of Axiom. Huerta filed a timely notice of
appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment.

II. ANALYSIS

Although Huerta’s sole appellate argument is that her “complaint state[d] a
claim for violations of the FDCPA sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss because she allege[d] that Axiom misrepresented the amount she owed[,]”
the record does not reflect that Huerta ever filed a complaint or countersuit. She
was the defendant below, with Axiom as the plaintiff. There was no motion to
dismiss filed by either party.2 It is impossible to say the trial court erred in granting

§§ 1692-1692p.
2
Rule 12(b)(6) is a federal procedure to dismiss baseless claims; Rule 91a of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure is the Texas counterpart. See GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429 S.W.3d
752, 754 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014, pet. denied) (“While not identical, Rule 91a is analogous
2
a motion to dismiss when no such motion was ever filed, let alone granted.

To the extent that Huerta’s appellate issue could be construed as arguing that
the trial court erred by rendering a judgment in favor of Axiom despite its alleged
infractions of the FDCPA, that complaint is different from any objection she
brought to the trial court’s attention. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). While she argues
on appeal, for the first time, that Axiom violated the FDCPA, she never made a
timely objection on that ground, or any other ground, to the trial court. See id.
Based on the record before us, it appears that Huerta filed her original answer—
arguing that she had no outstanding debt whatsoever—and then filed nothing else
until her notice of appeal. 3 Any complaint about Axiom’s alleged violation of the
FDCPA has not been preserved. See id.

Huerta’s appellate brief alleges in generalities that Axiom has violated the
FDCPA without any evidence to support that claim. If such evidence exists, then
the proper forum for introducing the evidence and making those legal arguments
was the trial court. Accordingly, we overrule Huerta’s sole issue.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court as challenged on appeal.

/s Charles A. Spain
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.

to Rule 12(b)(6); therefore, we find case law interpreting Rule 12(b)(6) instructive.”). However,
the present case involved neither a Rule 91a nor a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
3
Huerta does not argue that she had no notice of the bench trial or was otherwise
improperly notified. She gives no excuse or explanation for not appearing at trial.

3