Revere Tactical Opportunities Fund IV v. Lee-Wen, 2026 Tex. Bus. 51 (1st Div.) (mem. op.)

2026 Tex. Bus. 51
The Business Court of Texas,
1st Division
REVERE TACTICAL
OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, LP
and REVERE TACTICAL
OPPORTUNITIES REIT, LLC,
Plaintiffs
v.
MONTE K. LEE-WEN, Defendant
WESTSIDE FLATS OWNER LLC
and CG SUNSET LAND, LLC,
Plaintiffs
v.
REVERE TACTICAL
OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, LP;
REVERE TACTICAL
OPPORTUNITIES REIT, LLC; RC
2101 HAYES, LLC; and RC
SUNSET, LLC, Defendants
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Cause No. 25-BC01B-0064
(consolidated with 26-BC01B-0019)
═══════════════════════════════════════
MEMORANDUM O PINION AND O RDER
R EGARDING P ROPER N OTICE OF INTENT TO S ELL
═══════════════════════════════════════
FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
7/28/2026

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 2
[¶ 1] 	A pivotal issue in this case is whether a lender’s notices of intent
to foreclose sent by email and UPS next-day delivery satisfied deed of trust and
Texas Property Code § 51.002(b)(3)’s requirements that such notices be sent
by certified mail.1 The court concludes as a matter of law that the lender’s UPS
notices sufficed for two reasons:
• 	First, the contracts provide that all notices required or permitted to be
given shall be considered proper if given by delivery to an independent,
third-party 	commercial delivery 	service 	for 	same 	day or 	next-day
delivery service.
• 	Second, Texas law permits alternative service methods that do not delay
the notice time that certified mail would provide.
[¶ 2] 	Also at issue is whether notice to a debtor’s designated agent is
notice to the debtor.2 Based on this record, the court concludes as a matter of
law that the lender’s notice to the debtor’s designated notice agent was
sufficient.
[¶ 3] 	Finally, the lender also seeks partial summary judgment against
debtor’s wrongful foreclosure claims because debtor failed to give timely
notice of its allegations; a condition precedent to suing.3 The court concludes
1 See The Revere Parties’ May 8, 2026, Rule 166(g) Motion for Determination of Legal Matters (Revere’s
166(g) Mot.) at 12-19.
2 See Revere’s 166(g) Mot. at 19-22.
3 See The Revere Parties’ April 13, 2026, Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgement Regarding a
Condition Precedent (Revere’s PMSJ).

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 3
that lender’s motion is mooted by the court’s prior determination in lender’s
favor regarding the sufficiency of its written notice.
I. 	B ACKGROUND
[¶ 4] 	This case concerns Revere Tactical Opportunities Fund IV, LP
and 	Revere 	Tactical 	Opportunities 	REIT, 	LLC’s 	(collectively, 	Revere’s)
foreclosure on two real properties that secured a loan Revere made to Westside
Flats Owner LLC. When Westside defaulted, Revere sent notices of its intent
to sell the properties at a foreclosure sale. 	Although the deeds of trust and
Property Code § 51.002(b)(3) required Revere to send the notices by “certified
mail,” Revere sent them by email and UPS next-day delivery. It is undisputed
that the “debtor” received the notices no later than when it would have
received the notices had Revere sent them by certified mail.
[¶ 5] 	Another issue is whether a required notice to “CG Sunset Land,
LLC”—addressed to Casoro Group, LLC—was proper notice to CG Sunset
where (i) it is undisputed that Casoro Group received the notice and (ii) the
deed of trust designated it and its address as CG Sunset’s address:4
4 Appendix to [The Revere Parties’] March 26, 2026, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Revere’s App.)
at 146. The Revere Parties’ April 13, 2026, Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgement Regarding a
Condition Precedent relied on evidence previously submitted with their March 26, 2026, Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. For convenience, the court relies on the March 26th motion’s appendix for all record
citations.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 4
[¶ 6] 	Also at issue is Revere’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment 	Regarding 	a 	Condition 	Precedent, 	in 	which 	it 	argued 	that
Westside’s alleged failure to comply with its notice of default requirements
defeated Westside’s causes of action against Revere.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Revere’s Rule 166(g) Motion (UPS Notice Delivery)
1. 	Contract Notice
[¶ 7] 	This case involves two properties that secured Revere’s loan to
Westside. Section 7.02 of both deeds of trust required Revere to send notice
of intent to sell the properties by “certified mail” at least twenty-one days
before the sale.5 However, Revere sent its notices by UPS next-day delivery
(and email).
5 Revere’s App. at 135, 151.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 5
[¶ 8] 	Westside argues that Revere’s failure to send the notices by
certified mail materially breached the contract, caused a wrongful foreclosure,
and created Westside’s right to set aside the foreclosure sales.6
[¶ 9] 	Revere relies on the deeds of trust’s § 8.03 statement that
All notices or other communications required or permitted to be
given pursuant to this Deed of Trust shall be in writing and
shall be considered as properly given if . . . (iii) by delivery to an
independent third party commercial delivery service for same
day or next day delivery and providing for evidence of receipt at
the office of the intended addressee.7
[¶ 10] 	Westside counters that § 8.03 is a general provision subordinate
to § 7.02’s more specific certified mail requirement. Cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Xerox State & Local Sols., Inc., 663 S.W.3d 569, 587 (Tex. 2023) (specific
contract provisions usually control over general ones).
[¶ 11] 	Based on all applicable rules of contract construction, the court
concludes as a matter of law that (i) the deeds of trust are unambiguous on this
issue and (ii) “all” means “all.” 	And the canon that specific controls over
general applies to only “conflicting contract provisions.” 	See id. at 587 n.88
(internal quotations and citations omitted). 	But §§ 7.02 and 8.03 do not
conflict: § 7.02 says certified mail is required, and § 8.03 says same day or
6 Westside Flats Owner LLC and CG Sunset Land, LLC’s Original Petition (Westside Pet.) ¶s 14-16, 31, 33.
7 Revere’s App. 138-39, 154-55.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 6
next-day delivery “shall be considered as proper[]” notice, i.e., they will be
deemed 	proper 	even 	if 	technically 	improper. 	See Deem, 	B LACK ’ S 	LAW
DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (“1. To treat (something) as if (1) it were really
something else, or (2) it has qualities that it does not have. 	2. To consider,
think, or judge.”). For § 8.03 to serve a function, it must apply where a notice
would otherwise be technically improper.
[¶ 12] 	Accordingly, by stating that compliance with § 8.03 means that
such notices will be “considered” to comply with other deed of trust notice
requirements, the parties contemplated that strict compliance with § 7.02’s
requirements was not needed if the commercial delivery service produced an
equivalent result.
2. 	Statutory Notice
[¶ 13] 	Property Code § 51.002(b)(3)’s terms require serving written
notice of the sale by certified mail.
[¶ 14] 	However, case law distinguishes between notices of an intent to
sell and of a completed sale. For the former, alternative service suffices if the
debtor receives timely notice. See Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Reetz, 888
F.2d 1497, 1501 n.6 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[W]here the debtor actually timely
receives the notice required by section 51.002(b)(3) there is a sufficient

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 7
compliance with that requirement.”); Dagher v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.,
No. 3:13-CV-3575-B, 2016 WL 4138631, *3 (N.D. Tex. 2016); see generally
Hausmann v. Texas Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 585 S.W.2d 796, 799-800 (Tex. Civ.
App.—8th Dist. 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (strict compliance not required);
Forestier v. San Antonion Sav. Ass’n, 564 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Tex. Civ. App.—
8th Dist. 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (actual notice sufficient).
[¶ 15] 	Here, it is undisputed that Westside (or its agent) received the
notices at least as soon as if Revere had sent the notices by certified mail.8
Accordingly, the court concludes as a matter of law that Revere sufficiently
complied with Property Code § 51.002(b)(3).
3. 	Proper Address
[¶ 16] 	CG Sunset Land, LLC pledged one of the parcels at issue. 	CG
Sunset claims it received no notice of intent to sell its property because
Revere’s notice was not addressed to “CG Sunset,” although it concedes that
its designated agent for receiving that notice received it at the designated
8 See Westside Pet. ¶ 15.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 8
street address. 9 Specifically, that deed of trust’s page one specified CG
Sunset’s address as follows:10
[¶ 17] 	Here, it is undisputed that Revere sent its notice to Casoro
Group, LLC at that address. 	(And it is undisputed that Casoro Group, LLC
(and Lee-Wen) received the notice).11 Notice to an agent is notice to the
principal when acting in the scope of their employment. Wellington Oil Co. v.
Maffi, 136 Tex. 201, 150 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. 1941). So, as a matter of law,
CG Sunset received the notice. 	Omitting “CG Sunset Land, LLC” from the
address line was immaterial. 	See Hausmann, 	585 S.W.2d at 	799 (strict
compliance 	not 	required); 	Forestier, 	564 	S.W.2d 	at 	163 	(actual 	notice
sufficient).
B. 	Revere’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding
a Condition Precedent (Default Notice to Revere)
[¶ 18] 	Revere’s 	traditional 	motion 	for 	partial 	summary 	judgment
argues that Westside cannot complain about Revere’s failure to send its
9 See Westside Flats Owner LLC and CG Sunset Land, LLC’s June 2, 2026, Response the Revere Parties’
Rule 166(g) Motion for Determination of Legal Matters (Westside’s Resp.) at 17.
10 Revere’s App. at 146,
11 See Westside’s Resp. at 17.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTICE OF I NTENT TO S ELL , Page 9
notices of intent to sell by certified mail because Westside did not give timely
notice of that defect.12 The court’s rulings in part II(A) obviate the court’s
need to decide Revere’s condition precedent issues at this time.
[¶ 19] 	Accordingly, the court denies Revere’s Traditional Motion for
Partial 	Summary 	Judgment 	Regarding 	a 	Condition 	Precedent 	without
prejudice.
III. 	CONCLUSION
[¶ 20] 	For the reasons stated in part II, the court (i) grants the Revere
Parties’ Rule 166(g) Motion for Determination of Legal Matters and (ii) denies
without prejudice the Revere Parties’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding a Condition Precedent.
[¶ 21] 	This is not a final and appealable judgment.
It is so ORDERED.
BILL WHITEHILL
Judge of the Texas Business Court,
First Division
SIGNED: July 28, 2026
12 See generally Revere’s PMSJ.

Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 117924289
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Proper
Notice of Intent to Sell
Status as of 7/29/2026 8:09 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name
Morgan DMeyer
Daniel Durell
Camille Youngblood
Jeff Mills
Toni Thompson
Business Court 1B
BarNumber Email
morgan.meyer@wickphillips.com
daniel.durell@troutman.com
camille.youngblood@wickphillips.com
jeff.mills@wickphillips.com
toni.thompson@wickphillips.com
BCDivision1B@txcourts.gov
TimestampSubmitted
7/28/2026 5:26:17 PM
7/28/2026 5:26:17 PM
7/28/2026 5:26:17 PM
7/28/2026 5:26:17 PM
7/28/2026 5:26:17 PM
7/28/2026 5:26:17 PM
Status
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT