Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A defendant can prevail on the merits of its counterclaims against a governmental entity when the governmental entity recovers monetary relief on its affirmative claims by filing a lien and a lis pendens and then nonsuits its affirmative claims where the defendant seeks an offset against the amount the governmental entity recovered through the litigation process.Petitioner, which operated pecan orchards, entered into water-supply agreements with Respondent, a political subdivision. Respondent sued Petitioner for breach of contract. Petitioner counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. After Respondent recorded a crop lien and a lis pendens against Petitioner’s orchards, Petitioner paid Respondent the amount it sought to remove the lien and lis pendens but continued to pursue its counterclaims seeking an offset against that payment. Respondent later nonsuited its claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Respondent, ordering that Petitioner take nothing on its counterclaims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Petitioner could not prevail on the merits of its counterclaims merely because Respondent obtained its recovery by filing a lien and lis pendens. View "C. Borunda Holdings, Inc. v. Lake Proctor Irrigation Authority of Comanche County" on Justia Law

A defendant can prevail on the merits of its counterclaims against a governmental entity when the governmental entity recovers monetary relief on its affirmative claims by filing a lien and a lis pendens and then nonsuits its affirmative claims where the defendant seeks an offset against the amount the governmental entity recovered through the litigation process.Petitioner, which operated pecan orchards, entered into water-supply agreements with Respondent, a political subdivision. Respondent sued Petitioner for breach of contract. Petitioner counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. After Respondent recorded a crop lien and a lis pendens against Petitioner’s orchards, Petitioner paid Respondent the amount it sought to remove the lien and lis pendens but continued to pursue its counterclaims seeking an offset against that payment. Respondent later nonsuited its claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Respondent, ordering that Petitioner take nothing on its counterclaims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Petitioner could not prevail on the merits of its counterclaims merely because Respondent obtained its recovery by filing a lien and lis pendens. View "C. Borunda Holdings, Inc. v. Lake Proctor Irrigation Authority of Comanche County" on Justia Law

The mother of an adult disabled child had standing under the Texas Family Code to seek child support even though the child did not live with the mother, the mother did not have physical custody of the child, and the mother was not the child’s legal guardian.The trial court directed the father of the disabled child to pay child support to the mother, concluding that both the father and the mother, as parents, had a duty to support the child and that it was in the child’s best interest that they do so. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the mother did not have standing. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded to that court for it to consider the issues it did not reach, holding that, under Tex. Fam. Code 154.303(a)(1), the mother had standing to seek support in this case. View "In re Interest of C.J.N.-S." on Justia Law

The mother of an adult disabled child had standing under the Texas Family Code to seek child support even though the child did not live with the mother, the mother did not have physical custody of the child, and the mother was not the child’s legal guardian.The trial court directed the father of the disabled child to pay child support to the mother, concluding that both the father and the mother, as parents, had a duty to support the child and that it was in the child’s best interest that they do so. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the mother did not have standing. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded to that court for it to consider the issues it did not reach, holding that, under Tex. Fam. Code 154.303(a)(1), the mother had standing to seek support in this case. View "In re Interest of C.J.N.-S." on Justia Law

Defendants’ failure to fully comply with a temporary restraining order did not justify sanctions even more severe than death-penalty sanctions imposed by the trial court.Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Defendants. Without taking evidence, the court signed a TRO prohibiting Defendants from engaging in certain conduct. Plaintiffs later filed a motion for contempt and sanctions, alleging that Defendants knowingly violated the TRO. The trial court granted the motion in an order stating that “death penalty sanctions should be imposed” against Defendants. The court then awarded sanctions of $897,938. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) Defendants knowingly violated the TRO without a compelling excuse; but (2) the extreme sanction imposed for the violations of the TRO was an abuse of discretion. View "Altesse Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A turnover order is not a final, appealable judgment when it merely orders funds subject to an as yet unadjudicated ownership dispute into the court’s registry.Here, a turnover order directed funds subject to disputed ownership claims into the court’s registry “without prejudice” to the rights of either the judgment creditor or non-judgment debtor to later seek the funds’ release. Nearly six months after the trial court signed the turnover order, Respondent filed a motion to enforce the turnover order and to have the registry funds released to it on the grounds that Petitioner triggered a condition for releasing the funds when it neglected to appeal the turnover order. The trial court ordered the turnover order enforced and registry funds released to Respondent (the “release order”). The court of appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for want of jurisdiction due to Petitioner’s failure to timely appeal the turnover order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioner timely appealed the release order; and (2) the turnover order’s provisions did not function as a mandatory injunction, which meant the release order was the final judgment on Petitioner’s claims. View "Alexander Dubs Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co." on Justia Law

In this case involving an arbitration provision in short-term loan contracts the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling (1) the borrowers’ claims against the lender came within the arbitration provision, and (2) the lender did not waive its right to arbitrate by providing information to the district attorney that checks written to the lender by the borrowers had been returned for insufficient funds.The borrowers sued the lender, claiming that the lender wrongfully used the criminal justice system to collect unpaid loans by filing false charges against them. The lender responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration clause was inapplicable because the borrowers' claims related solely to the lender’s illegal use of the criminal justice system and that the lender waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the borrowers’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration provision; and (2) the lender did not substantially invoke the judicial process, and therefore, there was no evidence to support the trial court’s finding the the lender waived its right to arbitrate. View "Henry v. Cash Biz, LP" on Justia Law

In this case involving an arbitration provision in short-term loan contracts the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling (1) the borrowers’ claims against the lender came within the arbitration provision, and (2) the lender did not waive its right to arbitrate by providing information to the district attorney that checks written to the lender by the borrowers had been returned for insufficient funds.The borrowers sued the lender, claiming that the lender wrongfully used the criminal justice system to collect unpaid loans by filing false charges against them. The lender responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration clause was inapplicable because the borrowers' claims related solely to the lender’s illegal use of the criminal justice system and that the lender waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the borrowers’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration provision; and (2) the lender did not substantially invoke the judicial process, and therefore, there was no evidence to support the trial court’s finding the the lender waived its right to arbitrate. View "Henry v. Cash Biz, LP" on Justia Law

Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A., a Medicaid provider, was entitled to a contested-case hearing on the merits of the State’s claim to recoup alleged overpayments.Texas law directs the Inspector General to recover from a Medicaid provider any “overpayment” identified in a fraud or abuse investigation. Here, Shamrock received a “Notice of Payment Hold." Shamrock requested an expedited administrative hearing. Shamrock later received a “Final Notice of Overpayment.” The parties agreed to consolidate the payment hold and overpayment issues into one proceeding. The administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the overpayment and payment-hold cases due to Shamrock’s failure to submit a timely written request for an appeal. Shamrock filed suit. The trial court granted the Inspector General’s plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds. Shamrock appealed, arguing that the ALJ and Inspector General had a ministerial duty to abide by a Rule 11 agreement created by the parties’ communications and the Inspector General’s written representations. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the parties agreed that Shamrock would defend itself against the overpayment claims in a contested-cse hearing; (2) the ALJ failed to perform the purely ministerial act of enforcing the Rule 11 agreement; and (3) therefore, the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity applied to Shamrock’s suit. View "Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A. v. Texas Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

In this discovery dispute, the Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and ordered the trial court to vacate its order directing a relator to turn over his computer and other electronic devices for forensic examination.Marion Shipman partnered with Mark and Jamie Shelton in various real estate ventures. After their business dealings ceased, a bank sued the Sheltons. Jamie brought a third-party action against Shipman, alleging fraud and breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. Jamie sought to discover a variety of records regarding Shipman’s business dealings with the Sheltons. Dissatisfied with Shipman’s production, Jamie filed a motion to compel and then a second motion to compel, the motion at issue in this case. In his motion, Jamie asserted that Shipman may have destroyed material evidence in this case and asked that the trial court tcompel Shipman to turn over his computer for forensic inspection. The trial court ordered Shipman to product his computer and all “media” for forensic examination. The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Shipman to produce for forensic examination all his electronically stored files of every kind, whether business or personal, and regardless of whether they were related to the issues in the lawsuit, for seventeen years. View "In re Marion Shipman" on Justia Law