Orr is the trustee of a trust of which Wall is a beneficiary.  Wall sued Orr in Kentucky for actions he took as trustee.  The case was sent to arbitration, and the arbitrators Wall’s claim that the trust must distribute $63,000 to her.  But the arbitrators did grant Orr’s counter motion to permit him to give a cashier’s check for $63,000 made out to Wall to the arbitrators until Wall signed a release.  A Kentucky trial court confirmed the order.  Several years later, Wall filed suit in Collin County, Texas, claiming she is still owed the $63,000 despite the fact that she never signed the release.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s conclusion that Orr wins on the affirmative defense of claim preclusion because the transactional nucleus of facts between the two cases were essentially identical.  Wall argued that her claim in this suit was that the requirement that she sign a release constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, which was not litigated in the prior suit.  The court rejected this argument.

Wall v. Orr

Jay Nanda and his brother, Atul, ended up in a dispute over their jointly-owned company, Dibon Solutions. An arbitrator awarded ownership of the company to Atul and ordered him to pay Jay in excess of $500,000. After the arbitration award, Jay began to call Dibon’s customers and its bank, claiming that Dibon was engaged in all kinds of misconduct, including money laundering, human trafficking, and forging documents. Dibon sued Jay, asking the trial court for a temporary injunction to stop Jay from spreading his allegations any further. The trial court denied the temporary injunction, and Dibon filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the testimony supported Jay’s assertion that the statements were true. Without any false or misleading statements at issue, Dibon could not meet its burden of establishing an exception to the First Amendment’s prohibition of prior restraint. The court went on to hold that an injunction could not be sustained on Dibon’s alternative theory of tortious interference because, apart from the fact that Jay admitted sending the disparaging information in an email, there was no evidence that he had otherwise taken an active part in persuading Dibon’s customer to breach its contract. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dibon’s request for a temporary injunction.

Dibon Solutions, Inc. v. Nanda, No. 05-12-01112-CV

Robison filed a medical malpractice suit against Texas Health Resources, Inc. d/b/a Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Allen a/k/a Texas Health Allen (“THR”).  However, Robinson was treated by Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Allen (“THPHA”), and THR does not do business as THPHA nor did THR provide any of the care at issue in Robinson’s claim.  The trial court granted summary judgment for THR, and dismissed Robison’s claims due to the misidentification.  Robinson appealed, claiming that her original petition against “d/b/a [THPHA]” constituted an actual suit against THPHA.  The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the “d/b/a” designation does not make the entity a party to the lawsuit. Further, nothing in the record showed that THPHA has been an assumed name for THR or vice-versa. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Robison v. Texas Health Resources, No. 05-11-01376-CV

On July 6, 2012, the trial court in this case signed an order denying the defendant’s special appearance.  The defendant then moved for reconsideration of that denial on August 9, which the trial court subsequently denied on September 24.  On October 15, the defendant appealed the second denial.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because, under the rules, the defendant’s notice of interlocutory appeal was due by July 26, or twenty days after the trial court denied the first special appearance. The Court explained that permitting appeals twenty days after a motion for reconsideration would essentially eliminate the twenty-day requirement.

Pahl v. Swaim

The court of appeals has granted mandamus relief in a pair of cases challenging the decisions of trial courts in Dallas and Collin Counties that had granted pre-suit depositions under Rule 202. Reiterating that Rule 202 depositions are not intended for routine use, the court held that the trial courts had abused their discretion because the movants had not presented any evidence that the likely benefit of the depositions outweighed their burden or expense. Although the movant had filed verified petitions as required by Rule 202, those pleadings could not justify the pre-suit depositions because the movant had not sought to admit the verified pleadings at the Rule 202 hearings. Finding that the order granting the depositions was not subject to an ordinary appeal, the court conditionally granted mandamus to vacate the lower courts’ orders.

In re Campo, No. 05-13-00477-CV

In re Doak, No. 05-13-00538-CV

Cambridge and Jain entered into an option program agreement. Cambridge later determined the investment programs managed by Jain were not economically feasible and told Jain it intended to terminate them. Jain demanded Cambridge pay certain fees allegedly due him, Cambridge refused, and Jain filed suit for breach of contract. The matter was arbitrated before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) panel of arbitrators. The panel entered an award in favor of Jain, which the trial court confirmed. Cambridge appealed the judicial confirmation of the award. The court of appeals rejected Jain’s argument that Cambridge waived judicial review of the arbitration award by agreeing to arbitrate pursuant to FINRA rules. However, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment because it found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers by relying on impermissible matters outside the broad scope of the arbitration agreement.

Cambridge Legacy Group v. Jain, No. 05-12-00991-CV

Several former Dallas municipal judges brought this lawsuit challenging the 2012 municipal judge selection process, claiming that the Mayor and the City Council violated the city code by asking nominees to comment in writing on legislative proposals by an ad hoc legislative committee and by interviewing additional candidates without justification.  The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that these former judges lack standing to sue because they seek only a declaration that the City Council violated the law.  The Court found that the judges lacked any personal stake in the outcome of the case because (1) they disclaimed any intent to challenge the appointment of their successor judges; (2) they do not seek to be reinstated as judges; and (3) they deny that they are challenging the legitimacy of any ordinance.

Rawlings v. Gonzalez

John Pride and Phareale Investments filed a restricted appeal from the district court’s grant of a no-answer default judgment against them. Among other things, the appellants argued that they should have been served with the plaintiffs’ first amended petition because it sought more onerous relief than the original petition that had been served on them. The record did not reflect that the amended petition had been served on either of the appellants, and the new pleading added claims against them for fraud, declaratory relief, and exemplary damages. Based on those additions, the court of appeals concluded that the failure to serve the appellants with the amended pleading meant that the trial court erred in entering a default judgment against them.

Curiously, the court of appeals mentions in a footnote that the restricted appeal had been abated for a period in order to let the district court dispose of some remaining issues that prevented the default judgment from being a final judgment. The court did not indicate why the appellants elected to proceed with the restricted appeal when they apparently could have still sought relief from the trial court to set aside the interlocutory default judgment, or why they did not pursue an appeal in the ordinary course after the judgment became final.

Pride v. Williams, No. 05-11-01189-CV

Sullivan purchased a commercial cleaning franchise from Jani-King. The parties ended up in two disputes that were resolved through a single settlement agreement in 2004. The settlement agreement required Sullivan to “immediately and permanently cease operation” of his competing business, and Jani-King to offer Sullivan a certain amount of accounts within the next 12 months. The franchise agreement remained in full force and effect. In 2005, Jani-King sued Sullivan for breach of the franchise and settlement agreements, alleging that Sullivan continued to operate his competing business and failed to pay Jani-King royalty and advertising fees in compliance with the franchise agreement. The jury found in favor of Jani-King and Sullivan appealed.

Among other issues, Sullivan challenged the factual sufficiency of the jury’s findings. The court of appeals found that Sullivan’s factual sufficiency complaints were not preserved for review because Sullivan failed to file a motion for new trial. The court rejected Sullivan’s claim that his motion to disregard the jury’s findings or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict sufficed as a motion for new trial because those motions did not ask the trial court to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The court of appeals also found that Jani-King’s failure to provide Sullivan with accounts was excused by Sullivan’s prior breach of the settlement agreement through his failure to immediately cease operation of his competing business. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Sullivan v. Jani-King of NY, Inc., No. 05-11-01546-CV

In August 2002, after Kroupa and WIlliams had been living together in a common law marriage for a number of years, Williams took out a home equity loan on the parties’ residence without telling Kroupa.  Kroupa discovered the home equity loan the following month, in September 2002.  Several years passed, and Kroupa and Williams finalized their divorced in 2007 and Kroupa received the residence as part of that proceeding.  In 2008, Kroupa filed a petition seeking to have the home equity loan declared as void.

On appeal, the Court looked to the Texas Constitution’s 1998 amendment concerning home equity loans to determine whether Kroupa could prevail.  Under that amendment , Kroupa argued that the home equity line was void because she did not sign the written agreement or consent to it as the Texas Constitution required.  In response, Williams and Wachovia (the holder of the lien) insisted that Kroupa’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Examining the Texas Constitution and the line of cases discussing this specific provision, the Court found that becuase the lien here was voidable and not void, the statute of limitations applied.  The Court then found that, because Kroupa discovered the lien in September in 2002, and because she filed her lawsuit in September 2008, her suit was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

Williams v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp.

Regular readers may recall the plaintiff’s multi-year, multi-appeal quest to obtain a no-answer default judgment in the recent case of Elite Door & Trim, Inc. v. Tapia. That situation has presented itself again in another case arising out of the same trial court. This time, the case had only been reversed and remanded once before, unlike the two previous decisions in the Elite Door case. In the present case, the court of appeals had previously reversed the trial court’s order dismissing for want of prosecution because the court had not given the plaintiff sufficient notice of its intent to dismiss the case. On remand, the plaintiff amended its pleadings and filed an amended motion for entry of default. In the meantime, the trial court set another DWOP hearing. The plaintiff filed a motion to retain the case on the docket, noting that its request for a hearing on a default judgment had been denied by the court coordinator on the ground that the court did not set default motions for hearing unless it was deemed necessary by the court. The trial court then signed an order dismissing the case for want of prosecution. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to grant default judgment to the plaintiff, and that it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution in light of the plaintiff’s diligence in amending its pleadings and seeking entry of a default judgment. The court therefore remanded again and directed that judgment be granted in favor of the plaintiff on its claims for liquidated damages, attorney fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Harris, N.A. v. Obregon, No. 05-10-01349-CV

In this forcible detainer action, the defendant disputed the validity of the foreclosure sale in light of an automatic bankruptcy stay that had been issued. The Court noted, however, that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 746, the only issue that may be adjudicated in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession.  Accordingly, because the validity of of the foreclosure sale in light of a bankruptcy stay goes to the merits of the title, the Court held that this issue may not be raised in a forcible detainer action and rejected the defendant’s argument.

Stonebreaker v. FNMA

At a trial involving, among other things, counterclaims for breach of contract, the counterclaimant forgot to submit a jury question on the issue of damages. Because the jury agreed with the counterclaimant for all other elements of the breach of contract claim, the counterclaimant moved for judgment and requested that the trial court find that damages for the breach of contract established as a matter of law. The trial court did not expressly rule on the motion for judgment, but instead rendered a take-nothing judgment on  the counterclaim.

On appeal, the Court addressed several issues, including whether the counterclaimants had waived any objection to the jury charge on appeal.  The Court explained that, under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure “[w]hen an element of a claim is omitted from the jury charge without objection and no written findings are made by the trial court on that element then the omitted element is deemed to have been found by the court in such a manner as to support the judgment.”  Based on this, the Court concluded that the counterclaimants did not waive their claim for damages by failing to submit a jury question on that element of their claim and that they had also not waived argument concerning the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court’s “deemed finding.”

Alfia v. Overseas Service Haus

Parman sued TierOne to recover stock he allegedly owned in the company. The jury found that TierOne converted 4.5 million shares that belonged to Parman, and awarded him $600,000 in damages. TierOne appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence discovered after the trial began. TierOne received an audiotape after the second day of trial wherein Parman told another lawyer that “[No], man, I’ve got no stock [in TierOne], no nothing buddy.” TierOne produced the audiotape the next day, but the trial court denied TierOne’s motion to admit the tape.

Not surprisingly, the court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the newly discovered audiotape of Parman admitting he doesn’t own any of the stock he was suing to recover from his employer. The court of appeals found that TierOne had good cause for failing to produce the audiotape before becoming aware that the lawyer who produced the tape had relevant information and becoming aware of the existence of the audiotape. The court also determined that TierOne supplemented its discovery responses reasonably promptly by producing the tape to Parman the day after TierOne received it. Finally, the court held that the trial court’s errors “probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment” because the audiotape likely would have impacted the weight the jury accorded Parman’s testimony. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

TierOne Converged Networks v. Parman, No. 05-12-00026-CV

Cousins and business partners Matthew and J.W. Jenkins agreed to buy an investment property out of foreclosure. They claimed the negotiated price was to have been $250,000, but the closing documents listed the sale price as $349,000. Stewart Title Co. closed the sale, and J.P. Morgan Chase accepted assignment of the funded loan. The Jenkins sued the title company and the bank on theories including negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and defamation.

Stewart Title and Chase both filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. The cousins did not file any response, and the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The Jenkins moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The Jenkins appealed from the denial of the motions for reconsideration, but the court of appeals affirmed. Although the motions for reconsideration proffered evidence contesting the prior summary judgment motions, the plaintiffs did not ask for leave of court to file that evidence, nor did they demonstrate good cause for failing to respond to the original motions in a timely manner. Hence, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny reconsideration of the summary judgment rulings.

Jenkins v. Stewart Title Co., No. 05-12-00685-CV

Henning obtained a mortgage loan from Willow Bend Mortgage, which was later sold to IndyMac Mortgage Services, a division of OneWest Bank. IndyMac notified Henning that his loan was in serious default, and that failure to cure the default could result in foreclosure. Henning filed suit against OneWest, and OneWest filed a counterclaim for foreclosure. The trial court granted OneWest’s no evidence motion for summary judgment as to all of Henning’s claims, and OneWest’s summary judgment motion on its counterclaim. Among other issues, Henning alleges that the trial court erred by granting OneWest’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for foreclosure.

The court of appeals rejected Henning’s claim that the assignment of the note and deed of trust from IndyMac to OneWest was invalid because it was signed by a “robo-signer,” ruling instead that the note was endorsed in blank and OneWest was in possession of the original note. Thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact respecting the “chain of title” on the note. The court of appeals also concluded that Henning failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to default. The court found no evidence in support of Henning’s claim that OneWest’s documents reflect confusion and misrepresentations regarding its claim of default. The court also rejected Henning’s claim that OneWest’s “loss mitigation obligations” precluded foreclosure because the record did not show that the note or deed of trust “expressly incorporated” any “loss mitigation obligations.” Thus, the court affirmed summary judgment for OneWest on its foreclosure counterclaim.

Henning v. Onewest Bank FSB, No. 05-12-00078-CV

Nationsbuilders Insurances Services sued two of its former employees and their new employer, Houston International Insurance Group, for violating the employees’ covenants not to compete. The case was resolved with a settlement agreement in which the defendants agreed they would not compete with Nationsbuilders for one year by “soliciting, selling, quoting, binding, rating, or producing” certain specialized types of insurance. They also agreed they would not own or be employed by any entity that “conducts or plans to conduct” a competing business. The defendants did not quote or sell any such insurance during the restricted period, but they actively planned to do so by sending out marketing materials, preparing regulator filings, drafting forms, negotiating with re-insurers, and developing agent and customer lists. Nationsbuilders filed a demand for arbitration under the settlement agreement, and the arbitrator ruled that the defendants’ conduct entitled Nationsbuilders to a one-year equitable extension of the noncompete period. The defendants filed suit to vacate the arbitration ruling, and the trial court ruled that the arbitrator had “exceeded his powers” or “so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”

The court of appeals reversed. Indulging all reasonable presumptions in favor or the arbitration award, and granting great deference to the arbitrator’s decision, the court determined that the equitable extension of the noncompete period was within the arbitrator’s “broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy.” The settlement agreement had required the defendants to refrain from either conducting or planning a competing business for one year, and their actions had deprived Nationsbuilders of that bargained-for entitlement. Extending the noncompete for another year was rationally based on that contractual provision. The court of appeals also rejected the defendants’ claim that the arbitrator’s decision was moot. The court distinguished cases holding that requests for specific performance become moot after the expiration of the restricted period, noting that the remedy in this case was for an extension of the restricted period, not just its enforcement. Finally, the court of appeals rejected the defendants’ argument that the arbitration award was too badly drafted to enable them to understand how they were to comply with it. The line drawn by the arbitrator between “passive contemplation” of competition (which would not be material) and “head start” planning (which would violate the agreement) was clear enough that the defendants could reasonably understand what they were and were not permitted to do during the extended restricted period.

Surprisingly, the court of appeals relegated one obvious issue to a footnote at the end of the opinion. The extended restricted period had expired during the course of the appeal. Although the expiration of the noncompete may have rendered the appeal moot or the opinion advisory, the parties did not address how the expiration affected the case, and the court of appeals chose not to address the matter itself. That may be an issue for the trial court, as the court of appeals remanded the case for consideration of additional grounds for vacating the arbitration award that had not been ruled upon previously.

Nationsbuilders Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Houston Int’l Ins. Group, Ltd., No 05-12-01103-CV

Patrick Curry and PJC Equipment Leasing are the owners of an IAI Westwind II jet. They hired Matthew Webb and MKW Aviation to manage the plane, and MKW maintained possession of it in that capacity. A dispute arose over MKW’s charges, and the trial court granted a writ of sequestration requiring MKW to relinquish the airplane and its records to PJC. MKW then filed a lien against the aircraft for unpaid storage, maintenance, and fuel charges totaling over $35,000. The trial court granted MKW’s application for turnover relief, thereby requiring PJC to hand the plane back over to MKW. In an opinion focused on statutory construction, he court of appeals ended up denying PJC’s mandamus petition challenging that decision. Section 70.302 of the Property Code permits the holder of an aircraft storage and maintenance lien to retain and even retake possession of the subject airplane. The court of appeals rejected PJC’s contention that MKW would have to be a “secured party” to retake possession of the aircraft, ruling instead that being the holder of the aircraft lien was sufficient basis under the statute for reclaiming the property subject to the lien. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ordering the plane to be returned to MKW.

In re Curry, No. 05-13-00734-CV

Rickey Wayne Tolbert sued his former attorney, George Otstott, for legal malpractice. Tolbert is a pro se prison inmate, and was incarcerated at the time Otstott settled three separate personal injury matters on Tolbert’s behalf. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on his limitations defense, and since the underlying lawsuits were settled between 1987 and 1991, you would think that’s probably a meritorious defense. The court of appeals agreed. As a matter of law, a reasonably diligent person, after receiving a $1,012 check from his attorney, followed by sixteen years of silence, would have investigated and discovered that the lawyer had settled all three claims. Thus, the two year limitations periods for legal malpractice expired long before the filing of Tolbert’s lawsuit in 2010.

Tolbert v. Otstott, No. 05-12-0024-CV

Several years ago, the court of appeals affirmed most of a judgment against Spin Doctor Golf, but reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment sustaining Paymentech, L.P.’s statute of limitations defense. Spin Doctor Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 296 S.W.3d 354, 363 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied). On remand, the trial court denied Spin Doctor’s motion to modify the scheduling order to permit it to designate expert witnesses. The court denied that motion, and granted Paymentech’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment.

Spin Doctor had sought to designate five experts prior to the first summary judgment ruling and appeal, but that designation came months after the deadline under the scheduling order then in effect, and the trial court determined Spin Doctor had not shown good cause for the late designation of the experts. On remand, the trial court again rejected Spin Doctor’s request to designate experts. The court of appeals sustained that ruling, concluding that (1) there was a valid scheduling order in effect and Spin Doctor had blown well past it, (2) Spin Doctor’s need for a lost profits expert did not establish good cause for missing the deadline, (3) Paymentech’s failure to produce certain documents did not explain why Spin Doctor was prevented from timely designating the experts, and (4) the trial court could have reasonably determined that Paymentech would be unfairly surprised by the experts’ testimony because the record did not disclose any proffered report from those experts, leaving Paymentech to take discovery in the dark. The court of appeals also affirmed the summary judgment ruling, holding that the affidavit of Spin Doctor’s president had been properly stricken the first time through the trial court, and that its lost profits analysis was conclusory in any event.  With no evidence of damages, the judgment against Spin Doctor was affirmed.

Spin Doctor Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., No 05-11-0104-CV

Amy Self sued Tina King and Elizabeth Tucker for  injuries she received in a car accident purportedly caused by King.  On March 21, the trial judge sent a letter to all counsel requiring them to sign and return the enclosed scheduling order by April 8, 2011, or the court would place the matter on its dismissal docket.  Self failed to comply with this requirement and the court notified the parties of a dismissal hearing on April 21.  When Self failed to appear at this hearing, the court issued an order of dismissal.  In July 2011, Self moved to vacate the order of dismissal because, she argued, neither she nor her attorney had received notice of the scheduling order or the dismissal hearing.  The trial judge stated that, although the court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the case, she would deny the motion to reinstate if she had jurisdiction to do so.  On appeal, the Court found that Self failed to address all possible grounds for the dismissal of the case, which was required because “[i]f a dismissal order does not state the grounds for the dismissal, a plaintiff seeking reinstatement must negate all possible grounds.”

Self v. King