Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : D. Todd Smith Law Firm : Appeals, Sanctions, Summary Judgment : Austin, Texas

The Texas Supreme Court issued four new decisions and one substituted opinion with today's regular orders.

In General Electric Co. v. Moritz (No. 0871), the Court reaffirmed that a landowner owes an independent contractor’s employees no duty to warn of obvious hazards they already know about, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that his knowledge of the hazard was simply a factor for the jury to consider in assessing comparative negligence.  Justice Green (joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Johnson) dissented.

In Frymire Engineering Co. v. Jomar International, Ltd. (No. 06-0755), the Court held that the subrogation doctrine applies to a subcontractor seeking to recover contractual payments from alleged third-party tortfeasors, provided the doctrine's traditional requirements are satisfied. 

In Leland v. Brandal (No. 06-1028), a health-care liability case, the Court determined that a plaintiff may receive a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report after a ruling that the report is adequate has been reversed on appeal.  Justice Brister dissented. 

In Kao Holdings, L.P. v. Young (No. 07-0197) (per curiam), a restricted appeal, the Court reversed a default judgment granted against an individual who was not named as party to the suit, modified the judgment, and affirmed as modified.

In Evanston Insurance Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc. (No. 03-0647), the Court denied the motions for rehearing, withdrew its February 15, 2008 opinion and judgment (which were themselves issued on rehearing), and issued a substitute opinion reaching mostly the same result.  Rather than render a complete judgment, however, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on some of the insured's claims for attorney's fees and its prejudgment interest claim.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Appellants surnamed Belt had a rough day in the Third Court of Appeals.

In opinions written by Justice Jan Patterson (pictured), the Court dismissed for want of jurisdiction two restricted appeals brought by Robert Belt and one brought by Justin Belt.  All three cases are styled Belt v. Point Venture Property Owners' Association, Inc., and all of them involved tax foreclosure sales.

In Robert's first case (No. 03-07-000567-CV), the Court concluded that the order at issue, which involved distribution of part but not all of the excess sale proceeds, was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.  Although Section 34.04 of the Tax Code allows appeals from orders regarding excess proceeds, the Court concluded that "[n]o statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order to distribute a portion of the excess proceeds from a tax sale."

In Justin's case (No. 03-07-000568-CV) and in Robert's second case (No. 03-07-000569-CV), the Court concluded that that both appellants could not establish three of the four prerequisites for a restricted appeal:  (1) the notice of the restricted appeal was filed within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) by a party to the lawsuit; (3) who neither participated in the hearing nor filed a timely notice of appeal, post-judgment motion, or request for findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (4) the face of the record must disclose the claimed error.  Both Justin and Robert timely filed their restricted appeals, but neither was a party to the underlying lawsuit, both timely perfected (but did not pursue) an ordinary appeal, and the records in both cases failed to demonstrate error.

Of general appellate interest, the Court noted in the latter two opinions that "a party can no longer abandon an ordinary appeal and then seek a restricted appeal" (citing TRAP 30 and Salvaggio v. Brazos County Water Control & Improvement Dist., 598 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. 1980)).

The Belts have three other matters against the same opponent pending on the Third Court's docket.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In Wolk v. Wolk, the Third Court of Appeals has reversed a no-answer default divorce decree challenged in a restricted appeal, holding that error was apparent on the face of the record because the plaintiff presented no evidence identifying, describing, and valuing community assets awarded in the decree.  Without this evidence, the trial court could not have divided the community estate in a manner that was "just and right" under Texas Family Code § 7.001.  Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the decree and remanded the case for a new trial on the issues appellant raised, which also included child support and attorney's fees.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Charles v. Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, the Third Court of Appeals has held that the trial court's signing of an order nunc pro tunc to correct the cause number in a dismissal order did not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.  Accordingly, the appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant's complaints about the original order, which were raised in a restricted appeal from the order nunc pro tunc.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal after rejecting the appellant's challenges to the corrected version.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's Texas Supreme Court orders show that last week's prediction of at least four opinions wasn't totally off base.

In Norris v. Thomas, on a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Court determined that a houseboat did not qualify for the Texas Constitution's homestead exemption because it is a moveable chattel that does not rest "on the land," as the exemption requires.  Justice O'Neill dissented, along with Justices Wainwright, Brister, and Medina.

In Wachovia Bank v. Gilliam, a restricted appeal, the Court vacated a default judgment because the court of appeals erroneously presumed that substituted service complied with statutes requiring suit papers to be forwarded to the defendant's "home office" or "principal office."

In State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Martinez, the Court held that statutory penalties for failing to timely pay policy proceeds were properly imposed before the insurer sought interpleader, but were improper after that.  The Court further held that allowing the beneficiary to recover prejudgment interest as well as interest accrued while the proceeds were in the trial court's registry would be an imermissible double recovery.

In Jack in the Box, Inc. v. Skiles, the Court held the an employer had no duty to warn its employee, a truck driver injured when he fell into a trailer after using a ladder to climb over an inoperable lift gate, because the employee had been trained to handle situations when the lift would not operate and because the danger was common and obvious.

In City of San Antonio v. TPLP Office Park Properties, the Court held that the City's decision to close a driveway from a residential street to an office development accessible from other points was a valid exercise of its police powers, that the City could not be estopped from closing the driveway (which it had previously approved), and that that the City did not "take" from the development by diverting traffic from other driveways into the office park.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks