In Sims v. Carrington Mortgage Services, L.L.C., 440 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2014) the borrowers and their lender entered into a loan modification agreement, which lowered the interest rate and payments, capitalized past-due interest, fees, property taxes, and insurance premiums, and provided that all of the obligations under the original note and security agreement remained unchanged. Id. at 12. Subsequently, the borrowers brought a class action suit against the lender, alleging that the loan modification, for them and other similarly situated borrowers, violated Article XVI, section 50 of the Texas Constitution. Id. at 13-14. nd the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified the following question, among others, to the Texas Supreme Court: "After an initial extension of credit, if a home equity lender enters into a new agreement with the borrower that capitalizes past-due interest, fees, property taxes, or insurance premiums into the principal of the loan but neither satisfies nor replaces the original note, is the transaction a modification or a refinance for purposes of Section 50 of Article XVI of the Texas Constitution?" Id. at 13. In answering the question, the supreme court explained that "the restructuring of a home equity loan that . . . involves capitalization of past-due amounts owed under the terms of the initial loan and a lowering of the interest rate and the amount of installment payments, but does not involve the satisfaction or replacement of the original note, an advancement of new funds, or an increase in the obligations created by the original note, is not a new extension of credit that must meet the requirements of Section 50." Id. at 17. The Court held that the applicability of section 50(a)(6) hinged not on whether the transaction was characterized as a modification or a refinance, but on whether it constituted a new "extension of credit." Id. at 15. The Court expressly noted that the restructuring of a home-equity loan may involve not only the "capitalization of past-due amounts," but also "a lowering of the interest rate" or alterations to the "amount of installment payments." Id. at 17. The required payment schedule under a home-equity loan "is not one that, when initially set, can never be altered." Id. at 16. The supreme court held that a restructured loan does not constitute a new extension of credit when: (1) the original note is not satisfied or replaced; (2) no new funds are advanced; (3) the terms of the restructured loan do not impose any additional obligations. Id. at 17. "The test should be whether the secured obligations are those incurred under the terms of the original loan." Id. at 16. In that instance, there is no additional extension of credit and the modified loan "need not meet the constitutional requirements for a new loan" under section 50(a)(6). Id. at 11-12.