Please enable JavaScript, then refresh this page. JavaScript is required on this site.

Thomas M. Hanson


Three Energy Square
6688 North Central Expressway, Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75206

Thomas Hanson's practice concentrates on complex litigation and class actions, representing plaintiffs and defendants locally and nationally in matters involving consumer finance laws, mortgage fraud, real estate, land use and zoning, products liability, design defect, consumer protection, and business torts. His practice encompasses all aspects of civil litigation at the trial and appellate levels, including multi-district litigation and alternative dispute resolution.

In November 2008, Thomas was elected to the Scio Township, Michigan Board of Trustees, and previously served on the Scio Township Planning Commission.

He is also co-editor of Consumer Financial Services Answer Book, published annually since 2011.

Representative Matters

  • Trimble v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, __ S.W.3d __, 2016 WL 7368060 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.], Dec. 20, 2016), affirming summary judgment in favor of purchaser at foreclosure sale in forcible detainer action against occupants who refused to vacate property following foreclosure sale.
  • Washington-Jarmon v. OneWest Bank, FSB, __ S.W.3d __, 2016 WL 6886761 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th], Nov. 22, 2016), on a reverse mortgage, rejecting claim by non-borrower spouse that mortgage servicer violated Texas Constitution and Property Code by initiating foreclosure proceedings following death of the borrower.
  • Larsen v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 2015 WL 6768722 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 5, 2015), affirming summary judgment against non-borrower spouse to reverse mortgage and holding that homestead rights may be waived under Texas law.
  • Lamell v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 485 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2015), affirming in part summary judgment in favor of mortgage servicer and rejecting borrower’s claims based on lack of standing to foreclose and alleged breach of securitization agreement.
  • Davis v. OneWest Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 1623541 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth April 9, 2015), affirming summary judgment in favor of reverse mortgage servicer and holding that unjust enrichment does not constitute an independent cause of action under Texas law.
  • Wagner v. Citimortgage, Inc., 995 F.Supp.2d 621, (N.D. Tex. 2014), granting motion for summary judgment in case challenging defendant’s right to foreclose on residential property.
  • Mathis v. DCR Mortgage III Sub I, LLC, et al., 952 F.Supp.2d 828 (W.D. Tex., 2013), granting in part defendants’ motion to dismiss in case alleging fraud, forgery, wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, negligence and civil conspiracy arising out of foreclosure of commercial property.
  • Steele v. Quantum Servicing Corp., 2013 WL 3196544 (N.D. Tex. June 25, 2013), denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment relating to claims brought under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
  • Mathis v. DCR Mortgage III Sub I, LLC, et al., 942 F.Supp.2d 649 (W.D. Tex., 2013), denying plaintiff’s motion to remand following defendants’ removal of action arising out of foreclosure of commercial property.
  • Jaimes v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., 930 F.Supp.2d 692 (W.D. Tex. 2013), granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss claims for breach of contract, violation of the Texas Property Code, violation of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, illegal collection of mortgage payments, violation of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and to quiet title, in case arising out of Defendants’ foreclosure of Plaintiff’s property.
  • Fugues v. Southwest Financial Services, Ltd., 707 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2012) (representing amicus curiae Consumer Data Industry Association), affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant seller of property search reports and holding that defendant did not willfully violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act because defendant’s interpretation of FCRA was not “objectively unreasonable.”
  • Steele v. Quantum Servicing Corp., et al, 2012 WL 5987685 (N.D.Tex. Nov. 30, 2012) granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend in action alleging improprieties in residential foreclosure.
  • Cook-Bell v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., 868 F. Supp. 2d 585, (N.D.Tex. 2012) granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss claims for fraud, conspiracy, unfair debt collection practices, and to quiet title in residential mortgage foreclosure case.
  • Tyler v. Citi-Residential Lending, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 784 (N.D. Tex. 2011), aff’d 485 Fed. Appx. 700 (5thCir. 2012), granting summary judgment in favor of residential mortgage servicer in action alleging wrongful foreclosure, breach of loan modification agreement, and bad faith servicing practices.
  • Kimbrew v. Fremont Reorganization Corp., 2008 WL 5975803 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008). Dismissing claims as time-barred in putative class action alleging racial discrimination in pricing of mortgage products; in particular, the Court rejected Plaintiffs' claims (adopted by other courts) that claims were timely under "continuing violations" theory.
  • Munoz v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 573 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ("Munoz II"). Finding claims preempted under HOLA and dismissing complaint without leave to amend in putative nationwide class action alleging fraud, elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty and other state law claims arising from defendant's alleged sales and disclosure practices.
  • Murray v. New Cingular Wireless et al; Bruce v. KeyBank N.A., 523 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2008). Broadly rejecting "firm offer" FCRA lawsuits based on theory that mailings lacked value or that law requires all material terms in the initial mailer. This ruling effectively overrules Cole v. U.S. Capital (7th Cir. 2004).
  • Cedeno v. Indymac Bancorp, Inc., 2008 WL 3992304 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2008). Dismissing putative nationwide class action alleging illegal and deceptive appraisal practices based on HOLA preemption.
  • Sweet Air Investment, Inc. v. Kenny, et al., 275 Mich. App. 492 (May 15, 2007). Reversing judgment of trial court and remanding with instructions to enter judgment of possession in favor of plaintiff.


  • J.D., University of California, Hastings College of the Law, magna cum laude, Order of the Coif
  • B.A., University of Michigan

Bar Admissions

Michigan, California, Texas