The appeals court accepted the lender’s recordkeeping evidence and rejected Pham’s disclosure objections as improperly raised at trial.
30, 2026, the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals upheld a judgment against Theresa Pham for $619,419.50 to Montgomery Capital Partners IV, LP. The award was $500,000 in damages and $119,419.50 in pre-judgment interest. Montgomery Capital Partners loaned $2 million to Holy Kombucha, Inc., partially owned by Pham and Leandro Bienati, in January 2021, according to the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals.
On Oct. The decision upheld the trial court’s finding that Pham’s guaranty was still in place when the company defaulted. After a first default, the company entered into a forbearance agreement in December of that year.
Dispute over whether the obligation was extinguished
The results showed that the total guarantyd debt never fell below the threshold of $2,044,544.92.
But the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals said those arguments offered no reason to overturn the judgment. The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals looked at the payment history and correspondence that was offered at trial. Holy Kombucha had paid down a substantial amount on the draw facility, but the lender claimed there remained some interest owed. It also held that the guaranty covered the net balance of the original term loan and the draw facility and not just the draw facility. The lender prevailed at the trial court. The appeals court found the evidence was sufficient to support that finding and rejected Pham’s argument that the warranty had expired. Pham also took issue with where the lawsuit was filed, the admission of a loan balance sheet and how interest was calculated.
Her objection to the venue was therefore waived.
As to venue, the court said Pham had not made a timely request for a hearing on her motion to move the case to Dallas County. It said the lender’s representative had provided adequate proof of how the records were kept. The guaranty also provided the lender the right to initiate proceedings in other jurisdictions, including the court where it filed the case. The court also admitted in evidence a balance sheet showing the advances on the loan, repayments and interest accrued. Pham’s separate objections to disclosure rules had not been properly raised at trial.