Sua Sponte
27 FOLLOWERS
An Appellate blog with reports on civil cases & developments from the Dallas Court of Appeals and The Supreme Court of Texas. Sua Sponte focuses and reports on civil cases and other developments of interest from the Dallas Court of Appeals and The Supreme Court of Texas.
Sua Sponte
1w ago
Hyde v. GACP Finance Co., LLC
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00873-CV
Justices Reichek, Nowell (Opinion, available here), and Wright
Kelli Hinson
The “fair notice of pleadings” doctrine requires that the parties’ pleadings give adverse parties notice of their claims and defenses, as well as notice of the relief sought. Plaintiff GACP learned that lesson the hard way when the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a $1.8 million judgment in its favor and rendered judgment for the Defendants.
The GACP sued Defendants Hyde and Winspear alleging fraud in connection with a Credit Agreem ..read more
Sua Sponte
1M ago
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. MB2 Dental Solutions, LLC
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-24-00288-CV (September 20, 2024)
Justices Molberg (Opinion, linked here), Pedersen, III, and Carlyle
Robert Fountain
After Zurich denied coverage under three insuring agreements for MB2’s losses arising from COVID-19 pandemic government orders, MB2 sued Zurich, asserting breach-of-contract and extra-contractual claims. Three years into the suit, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on one of the insuring agreements, which covered interruption-by-communicable-disease (“ICD”). After ..read more
Sua Sponte
2M ago
Aspen Strategic Holdings, LLC v. Transitus Capital, L.L.C.
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00249-CV (August 27, 2024)
Justices Partida-Kipness (Opinion, here), Pedersen III, and Carlyle
Ken Carroll
A court will vacate an arbitration award where there is “evident partiality” of the arbitrator. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.088(a)(2)(A). The Supreme Court of Texas has explained that a “neutral arbitrator … exhibits evident partiality if he or she does not disclose facts which might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality ..read more
Sua Sponte
2M ago
Dallas Excavation Systems, Inc. v. Orellana
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-01149-CV (August 21, 2024)
Justices Molberg (Opinion, here), Nowell, and Kennedy (Dissenting, here)
Ken Carroll
In a case arising from an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, the Texas Supreme Court has held that, “[A] party waives an arbitration clause by [1] substantially invoking the judicial process [2] to the other party’s detriment or prejudice.” Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 589-90 (Tex. 2008). More recently, however, the United States Supreme Court has said that under the F ..read more
Sua Sponte
3M ago
Bain & Schindele Tax Consulting, LLC v. EW Tax and Valuation Group, LLP
Dallas Court of Appeals , No. 05-23-00560-CV (August 7, 2024)
Justices Molberg, Nowell (Opinion, linked here), and Kennedy
Ken Carroll
Sarah Schindele sold the assets of her tax and bookkeeping business (“BSTC”) to EW Tax for a little over $800,000—$162,500 up front and a note for the balance that called for 60 monthly payments of $7300 and a sizeable balloon payment at the end of the payout period. As part of the arrangement, Schindele agreed that for a five-year “Restrictive Period”she would not ..read more
Sua Sponte
5M ago
Hernandez v. Ayala
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00549-CV (June 18, 2024)
Justices Smith (Opinion, linked here), Miskel, and Breedlove
Ken Carroll
Customarily, an owner may testify about the value of his or her property in a Texas trial court. Testimony of an independent expert isn’t required. But to be legally sufficient, an owner’s testimony about value must embody and convey more than the owner’s unsupported, unsubstantiated guess.
A partnership dispute arose between Hernandez and Ayala. At trial, the jury awarded Ayala $104,000 in damages based on the value of pa ..read more
Sua Sponte
5M ago
In re Chitkara
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-24-00482-CV (June 12, 2024)
Justices Pedersen III, Smith (Opinion, linked here), and Garcia
Ken Carroll
If a defendant wants to designate an unknown person as a responsible third party, Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 33.004(j) prescribes unique requirements—distinct from those governing designation of known persons— that must be closely followed.
Chitkara sued Ortiz and his employer, Hellas Construction, when Ortiz abruptly pulled in front of Chitkara on the Dallas North Tollway, causing a collision. Ortiz and Hellas alleged in ..read more
Sua Sponte
6M ago
Lawton Candle, LLC v. BG Personnel, LP
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00449-CV (May 13, 2024)
Justices Garcia, Breedlove (Opinion), and Kennedy
Neil R. Burger
Lesson learned: serving an out-of-state registered agent for the out-of-state defendant is not proper service under Texas law.
In this restricted appeal, the Oklahoma defendant, Lawton Candle, LLC, claimed the default judgment against it was improper because it had not been properly served with process. The plaintiff, BG Personnel, LP, had served Lawton Candle with the lawsuit through its registered agent in ..read more
Sua Sponte
6M ago
In the Interest of MBG and ATGDallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00505-CV (May 2, 2024)
Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell (opinion available here), and Smith
Kelli Hinson
You can’t always trust your soon-to-be ex-husband. The wife in this divorce case learned that the hard way when she failed to answer or appear at trial and was unhappy with the orders entered by the Court. She filed a motion for new trial, arguing she met the Craddock factors. She testified that her failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference because, after she received the divorce petition, the husband told her ..read more
Sua Sponte
7M ago
Paxton v. Commission for Lawyer DisciplineDallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00218-CV (April 18, 2024)
Justices Nowell (Opinion, linked here), Miskel (Dissent, linked here), and Kennedy
Ken Carroll
More fallout from failed litigation regarding purported irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. A day after one panel of the Dallas Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed summary judgment rejecting the State Bar’s disciplinary charges against Sidney Powell—largely because of the Bar’s less-than-ideal briefing at trial and on appeal—another divided panel of that same court found it la ..read more