entity owns a note is sufficient to conclusively establish ownership even in the absence of supporting documentation if there is no controverting summary judgment evidence.”); Hou-Tex Printers, Inc. v. Marbach, 862 S.W.2d 188, 191 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (explaining ownership of note may be established through affidavit) (citing Zarges v. Bevan, 652 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Tex.1983)). Therefore, Citibank indeed established that it owned the account. Nguyen’s reliance on the fact that the account statements came from and payments were to be sent to Citi Cards does not directly contradict Reynolds’s assertion that Citibank owns the account. See Grant-Brooks v. Transam. Bank, N.A., No. 05-02-00754-CV, 2003 WL 203481, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas Jan. 31, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the mere alleged fact that the
holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding affidavit by bank president was sufficient to support summary judgment where it established plaintiff bank owned the note and the amount due on the note and defendant failed to offer controverting evidence holding that fact another banks name appeared on credit application signed by debtor did not controvert plaintiff bank employees affidavit asserting ownership on behalf of plaintiff bank