Burns v. Stanton

In Burns v. Stanton, 286 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2009, pet. denied), the Court held the bank's admonition that it will take "all applicable enforcement action," including enforcement action "as defined by the subordination agreement," was sufficient notice of the bank's intent to accelerate, even though the letter did not use the phrase "intent to accelerate." The subordination agreement's definition of "enforcement action" included the acceleration of the subordinated indebtedness. The notice of default therefore necessarily included the required notice of intent to accelerate. Burns, 286 S.W.3d at 662.