Ted Robertson

This case involved a divorce between Robert and Maria Penick, focusing on whether the community estate should be reimbursed for funds used to pay down debt on Robert's separate rental properties acquired before marriage, and if tax benefits from depreciation of those properties could offset the reimbursement. The trial court found no reimbursement was owed because the tax savings to the community exceeded the payments made. The court of appeals reversed, requiring full reimbursement without offsets. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and affirmed the trial court, reasoning that reimbursement claims are equitable in nature and thus require consideration of all facts, including offsetting benefits received by the contributing estate.

family lawproperty

The case involved claims by a business consumer against computer manufacturers under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for breach of warranty and deceptive practices in the sale of a computer system, after consolidation of related suits. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment in a bench trial after the plaintiff's evidence, finding no support for the claims, but the court of appeals reversed on grounds that some evidence of a relationship supported potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the Lorino rule improperly equated bench-trial judgments with directed verdicts and that trial judges may weigh evidence and decide on the merits when unpersuaded by the plaintiff's case; it also ruled that common-law vicarious liability theories like agency are required for DTPA claims and that a mere relationship does not suffice.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the construction of attorney A.H. Lumpkin's will, which granted his wife Cornelia a life estate in most property while devising the remainder, including a homestead and other lands, to Perfect Union Lodge No. 10. The probate court ruled that the will created a testamentary trust with the executor as trustee, and it ordered the sale of certain underproductive real property under Texas Trust Code section 113.110, with proceeds to be allocated between the income beneficiary and the remainderman. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Texas Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the will's language separated legal and equitable estates and conferred trustee-like powers on the executor sufficient to establish an express trust. The court reasoned that the testator's intent, ascertained from the four corners of the instrument, required giving effect to all provisions, including the broad management authority granted to the executors equivalent to that under the Texas Trust Act.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned the Davises' suit to reform a deed that, due to a title company error, conveyed their entire San Antonio lot rather than the agreed-upon west 105 feet to Grammer. Grammer raised an unclean hands defense based on unrelated fraudulent representations about a tenant's lease and an assumable loan, and the jury found those representations false and detrimental; the trial court denied reformation and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Davises had preserved the issue that any fraud was collateral to the property-description mistake and therefore could not bar equitable relief. It reasoned that appellate briefing rules are to be liberally construed and that the points of error, together with argument, sufficiently directed the court to the contention that reformation should be granted despite the fraud findings. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to reform the deed to reflect only the west 105 feet.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned a bank's attempt to recover insurance proceeds after a tractor-trailer it financed was destroyed in an accident. The bank, named as loss payee on a temporary binder issued by Southern County Mutual Insurance Co., sued the insurer on the binder and, alternatively, sued the insurance agents for strict liability under the Texas Insurance Code if the binder was invalid. A jury found against the bank on all issues, but the court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment holding both the insurer liable on the binder and the agents strictly liable. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the judgment finding a valid Southern County Mutual binder in effect at the time of the loss but reversed the strict-liability holding against the agents, reasoning that the binder's validity meant the agents had complied with the Insurance Code and that allowing recovery on both theories would create an impermissible double recovery; the court also held the insurer had waived its cross-claim for contribution.

business & regulatory

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by James Duff against St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, alleging that hospital staff negligently failed to protect his ulnar nerve during or after surgery, causing injury. The trial court granted an instructed verdict for the hospital, which was affirmed by the court of appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas. The court reasoned that Duff presented no expert medical testimony establishing that any hospital negligence proximately caused the injury within a reasonable medical probability, relying instead on testimony about mere possibilities, which was insufficient to submit the issue to the jury.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare