The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during November and December 2024. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of January 9, 2025.
SUPERSEDEAS: Court affirms order increasing bond amount.
New Braunfels Stewardship Props., LLC v. Circle F Invests., LP, No. 03-24-00282-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 14, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Appellees sued appellants for fraud and tortious interference regarding a commercial lease. The jury found that appellants committed fraud. The trial court signed a $7 million judgment and an injunction against appellants concluding that they were likely to dissipate assets to avoid satisfying the judgment. Appellant NBSP contended its net worth was $89k and filed a $45k supersedeas bond. In support of their net worth calculations, Appellants presented six different valuations for the property. The trial court rejected appellants’ evidence and found that NBSP’s net worth was over $4 million and set a $2 million bond. The court of appeals observed that as the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility the trial court could disregard uncontradicted testimony from disinterested witnesses. The different valuations and the underlying fraud finding supported the trial court’s conclusions that appellants’ evidence was not credible. The court affirmed.
FAMILY LAW: Court reverses community property finding.
DeSpain v. DeSpain, No. 03-2300348-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 22, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
In a divorce, the trial court concluded that property husband acquired before marriage was community and ordered husband to pay wife $212,500 for her interest. Husband acquired the property from his parents more than 10 years before he married. The court of appeals concluded that under the inception-of-title doctrine, the property was husband’s separate property. According to the court, improvements made to separate real property, even with community funds, remain the landowner’s separate property. The fact that the parties refinanced the property with a loan obtained during marriage did not transform the property into a community asset. Further, using community funds to pay the property’s mortgage did not transform it into community property. The court reversed and remanded the property-division portions of the decree.
MANDAMUS: Court grants relief from order that severed defendant’s third-party claims.
In re AJT Indus., LLC, No. 03-2400570-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 18, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
In this construction-defect case, the trial court granted plaintiff’s request to bifurcate some of defendant/general contractor’s third-party claims. According to the court of appeals, the trial court effectively severed GC’s third-party claims from the underlying lawsuit to be tried before a different jury. The court concluded that the order violates Chapter 33’s proportionate-liability scheme that requires the trier of fact to determine the percentage of responsibility for each party that caused harm. GC and all third-party defendants were entitled to a fact finding in a single trial regarding their proportionate share of responsibility.
Thus, GC’s claims for contribution against third-party subcontractors could not be severed. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion, and that GC lacked an adequate appellate remedy.
ATTORNEY’S FEES: Court reverses appellate-fee award.
Mustafa v. Asim, No. 03-2300018-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 20, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem op.).
In a custody modification proceeding, the trial court awarded Asim $50,000 in appellate attorney’s fees. The court of appeals noted that under Yowell, when reviewing the legal sufficiency of an award of appellate fees, the court determines whether the party met its burden with opinion testimony about the services necessary to defend an appeal and a reasonable hourly rate for such services. The court observed that Asim only presented evidence of hourly rates and estimates of fees for each phase of the appeal. Asim’s attorney provided no evidence about the legal services necessary to defend an appeal. Thus, the court held that the appellate-fee award was legally insufficient under Yowell. The court reversed and remanded for a redetermination of attorney’s fees and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.