Texas Mortgage Lenders

National Bank makes it clear that in certain circumstances a creditor can give up an earlier expiration and thus defer the watch to the expiration of enforcement.

At Boren in early May 2009, the U.S. Bank initially sent borrower letters of credit and an accelerated credit facility. However, when the U.S. Bank then tried to continue the enforcement, the borrower lodged a lawsuit to stop it. In the course of the next few years, a model emerged: every single times the U.S. bank tried to continue with enforcement, borrower complaints were submitted to stop enforcement from progressing.

At the end of May 2013, the U.S. Bank already started a forth compulsory auction procedure. Borrower filed another lawsuit, this case with the argument that the US bank's right of enforcement had expired because more than four years had elapsed since the first acceleration of the credit. However, the Tribunal found that after the first acceleration of the credit in May 2009, the U.S. Bank had sent several payment defaults to the borrower, which showed that the "total amount necessary to start the credit was lower than the full amount of the credit".

Failure notifications also showed that the credit would be "accelerated again" if the failure was not rectified. However, the Tribunal did not raise the issue of the effects of the behaviour of borrowers in submitting repeat actions to terminate enforcement. Nevertheless, the Tribunal decided that a creditor would abandon its earlier expediting - and therefore reset the four-year limitation period for enforcement - if it sent a new demand for repayment "for less than the full amount of credit".

The U.S. Bank had sent many such reminders to debtors after accelerating the credit for the first time in 2009, and so its attempts to abolish the credit in 2013 were not excluded by the limitation period.