Insight & Commentary on Texas Appellate Law
Must an appellant who seeks to appeal a trial court’s order sustaining a challenge to the appellant’s affidavit of indigency file a separate notice of appeal? Answer: It depends on which court of appeals the appeal is in.
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has held that it is not necessary for an appellant to…
The Beaumont Court of Appeals has held that the minimum amount in controversy necessary to invoke a district court’s jurisdiction is $201.00.
In Acreman v. Sharp, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff Acreman’s claims against an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice because Acreman’s petition asserted that the value of the property he was complaining of was $400.00. The trial court concluded that the minimum amount in controversy to invoke a district court’s jurisdiction must exceed $500.00. Acreman appealed.
Continue Reading District Court Jurisdiction: Split of Authority
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has held that a party challenging a default judgment may well risk losing the opportunity to challenge the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him unless special precautions are taken.
In Boyd v. Kobierowski, Kobierowski, a Texas resident, sued Boyd, a California resident, in Texas for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation and DTPA violations. All causes of action arose from the sale of a vehicle Boyd sold to Kobierowski.
Boyd did not answer the suit and Kobierowski took a default judgment against Boyd. Boyd subsequently filed a restricted appeal to challenge the default judgment. He prevailed on appeal because of a defect in personal service. See Appeal No. 04-06-0041-CV.
On remand, Kobierowski repeatedly tried to get Boyd to answer the suit, but Boyd did not respond. Kobierowski then took a second default judgment. Boyd subsequently filed a special appearance and a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance. The trial court denied the special appearance, but granted the motion for new trial. In a second (interlocutory) appeal, Boyd argued that it was error to deny his special appearance.Continue Reading Waiver of Special Appearances in Default Challenges
Assume a foreign insurance company provides auto insurance cards that specifically cover accidents both in the home country and the United States. If a car accident occurs in Texas, can the insurer avoid personal jurisdiction in the suit by alleging that it did not purposefully avail itself to Texas?
This was the issue before the Dallas Court of Appeals in Assurances Generales Banque Nationale v. Dhalla.Continue Reading In case you’re ever in a car accident with someone insured by a foreign insurance company…
After reading Combs v. Kaufman County, I can’t help but wonder if there is something missing from the Court’s opinion or if the opinion contains an error. Nontheless, I was surprised to learn about a rarely-invoked provision of the Texas Constitution that allows parties to a suit to pick their own judge.
Article V, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution provides that when the judge of a county court is disqualified, "the parties interested may, by consent, appoint a proper person to try said case." In Combs, the presiding judge of the Kaufman County Constitutional Court apparently disqualified herself from hearing a guardianship for Wallace Darst. [Note, the opinion uses the term "recused," which has a different legal meaning, but from the facts, it appears the Court meant to use the term "disqualified"]. The parties subsequently asked Judge Glen Ashworth, who was then district judge for the 86th Judicial District Court, to preside over the guardianship. Here, the opinion is somewhat confusing or inconsistent as to whether Judge Ashworth merely presided as judge for the constitutional county court or whether the case was treated as having been transferred to the 86th District Court, with Judge Ashworth presiding as judge of that court. Judge Ashworth subsequently awarded the guardian (Combs) a fee of $143,168.95 and that order was not appealed.Continue Reading Subject-matter Jurisdiction and Consent
The Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals recently held that the Property Owner Rule applies to corporate owners. The Property Owner Rule is the rule of law that allows a property owner who is familiar with the market value of his property to testify regarding the market value, even if he is not qualified as…
A court appointing a receiver has exclusive jurisdiction over property subject to the receivership. When does the court’s exclusive jurisdiction end? The court must either relinquish its jurisdiction or order the receiver to restore the property to those entitled to it.
Proper relinquishment of exclusive jurisdiction was the main issue of a recent San Antonio Court of Appeals case: Chimp Haven, Inc. v. Primarily Primates, Inc. You can read the opinion here.
Continue Reading Court Doesn’t Monkey Around With Exclusive Jurisdiction
The Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals highlighted a split of authority in the courts of appeals regarding waiver of immunity in the Texas Whistleblower Act. In Galveston ISD v. Jaco, the Court considered the question of whether immunity from liability is coextensive with immunity from suit under the Whistleblower Act. The Court…
In an interesting opinion regarding dominant/servient jurisdiction and abatement, the Houston (First) Court of Appeals made this observation regarding the proper relief on a motion to abate:
Generally, the proper relief on a motion to abate on the ground of dominant jurisdiction is abatement. . . . However, there is also authority that that if a party
…
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a pro se letter from an Illinois resident denying liability and requesting an extension of time to retain counsel and file a "complete answer" waived the defendant’s subsequent special appearance. The defendant argued that the letter did not consitute an answer. The court held that the letter constituted an answer. …
