The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss claims made by Corey Morrell against Frost Bank and the Resendez Firm. The court ruled that Morrell's claims, which included allegations of fraudulent lien filing and abuse of process, were protected under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). This ruling is significant as it reinforces the protections afforded to parties exercising their right to petition in legal matters.
The case, Corey Morrell v. Frost Bank, Fridge & Resendez, P.C., and John R. Resendez, was filed in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals under docket number 02-25-00556-CV. The court's decision, delivered on June 18, 2026, impacts individuals involved in similar disputes, particularly those related to debt collection and enforcement actions.
Background
Corey Morrell, acting without an attorney, originally faced a default judgment from Frost Bank in 2004. The bank subsequently hired the Resendez Firm to enforce this judgment, which included filing an abstract of judgment and seeking writs of execution against Morrell. In 2025, Morrell filed a lawsuit against Frost Bank and the Resendez Firm, alleging several claims, including fraudulent lien filing and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA).
Morrell's claims arose from actions taken by Frost and the Resendez Firm to collect the judgment against him. Both defendants responded to Morrell's lawsuit by filing motions to dismiss under the TCPA, arguing that his claims infringed upon their right to petition. Morrell countered these motions, asserting that his claims fell under the TCPA's commercial-speech exemption and that he should be allowed to conduct limited discovery to support his case.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Frost Bank and the Resendez Firm, affirming the dismissal of Morrell's claims. The opinion, authored by Justice Wade Birdwell, stated, "Morrell failed to present clear and specific evidence of his claims' essential elements." The court found that all of Morrell's claims were based on actions related to the enforcement of the judgment, which constituted an exercise of the right to petition as defined by the TCPA.
Furthermore, the court determined that the commercial-speech exemption did not apply to Morrell's claims. The opinion explained that Morrell did not demonstrate that the defendants were engaged in commercial transactions related to the enforcement actions, stating, "Morrell's claims were based on steps that Appellees had taken to enforce a judgment against him." The court also upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Frost Bank, which amounted to $43,330.47.
Impact
This ruling has broader implications for individuals facing similar legal challenges. It underscores the importance of the TCPA in protecting defendants from retaliatory lawsuits that may arise from their legal actions, particularly in matters involving debt collection. The decision clarifies the requirements for establishing claims under the TCPA and reinforces the notion that actions taken in the course of enforcing a judgment are protected activities.
Moreover, the court's affirmation of the attorney's fees awarded to Frost Bank highlights the potential financial implications for plaintiffs who pursue claims that may not meet the necessary legal standards. This case serves as a reminder for individuals to carefully consider the merits of their claims before initiating legal action, particularly in disputes involving debt collection.
What's Next
Following this ruling, it is unclear if Morrell will pursue further legal action or appeal the decision. The court's opinion does not indicate any pending related cases. However, the ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving the TCPA and the enforcement of judgments in Texas.