Daffin, hardly satisfying the standards of § 12.002. This alone is fatal to the L’Amoreauxes’ § 12.002 claim. But in addition, other undisputed facts suggest that the interest in real property asserted by the notices was not false. Cornerstone endorsed the Note to Wells Fargo. Because the Note was signed by “Cornerstone Home Mortgage Corp.” the endorsement must have occurred prior to the corporation’s being converted to an LLC in October 2009. Thus, as early as 2009, Wells Fargo held the Note. Even accepting the L’Amo-reauxes’ argument that only a party that possesses the Note has authority to foreclose on their property, Wells Fargo had authority to do so. See Kiggundu v. Mortg. Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 469 Fed.Appx. 330, 332 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). It is thus not plausible that Barrett Daffin
recognizing a cause of action under texas law for misappropriation holding in a bankruptcy case that ahmsi did not prove that it was the party entitled to enforce and receive payments from a mortgage note because it presented no evidence as to who possessed the original note it also presented no evidence showing endorsement of the note either in its favor or in favor of wells fargo for whom ahmsi allegedly was servicing the bankrupt partys loan holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied recognizing that under texas law it was enough for foreclosing party to establish that it was in possession of the note