David Goad v. Hancock Bank F/K/A Peoples First Community Bank
14-13-00861-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 18, 2015Background
- Appellant David Goad, pro se, sought en banc rehearing after the Fourteenth Court of Appeals decision in a suit brought by Hancock Bank (f/k/a Peoples First Community Bank).
- Goad filed a Special Appearance (challenging personal jurisdiction) and a Motion to Change Venue on June 3, 2013; he alleges the trial court and clerk delayed settings and denied his request to appear by telephone despite medical disability.
- While Goad awaited a ruling on the Special Appearance (which under Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a must be heard before other matters), the plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- Goad contends the trial court ignored his motions and pleadings, improperly considered the MSJ before resolving jurisdiction/venue, and effectively denied him due process by preventing telephonic appearance.
- Goad also argues Hancock Bank is not authorized to sue in Texas: he claims the bank is not a Texas-chartered or national bank, did not register with Texas authorities, and therefore lacks capacity/correct venue.
- This document is a First Amended Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Consideration supplementing Goad’s appellate brief; it asks the court to reconsider based on procedural errors and alleged fraud on the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by hearing MSJ before deciding Special Appearance | Hancock proceeded with MSJ; asserts venue and jurisdiction were proper | Goad: TRCP 120a required the Special Appearance (personal-jurisdiction challenge) be heard and determined before other matters; court ignored rule | Not resolved in this motion; appellant asserts error and seeks rehearing/en banc relief |
| Whether appellants were denied due process by being refused telephonic appearance | Plaintiff silent on telephonic request | Goad: denial of telephonic appearance (due to disability/illness) prevented his participation and forced submission disposition | Not resolved in this motion; appellant alleges denial of procedural fairness |
| Whether venue in Harris County was proper | Hancock pleads venue proper because defendant resides in Harris County | Goad: contends venue is improper and plaintiff failed to controvert venue facts per TRCP 87; sought transfer to Comal County | Not resolved in this motion; appellant argues venue challenge was ignored |
| Whether Hancock Bank has capacity/authority to sue in Texas | Hancock alleges it is a national bank with principal place of business in Houston | Goad: contends Hancock is not listed as a national bank, did not register with Texas agencies, and thus lacks capacity and is a fraud on the court | Not resolved in this motion; appellant requests proof of authority and alleges fraud on court |
Key Cases Cited
- Creussag Aktiengesellschaft v. Coleman, 16 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App. 2000) (choice-of-law provision does not alone confer personal jurisdiction)
- GeoChem Tech., 962 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. 1998) (procedures for venue facts/controverting venue proof)
- Construction v. Stephens & Son Concrete Contractors, Inc., 165 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App. 2005) (venue proof standards)
- Bench Co., 133 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. 2004) (procedural preservation for objections to notice)
- Beard, 924 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. App. 1996) (continuance and notice objection principles)
- Gonzalez v. Nielson, 770 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. App. 1989) (venue and procedural defenses)