523 S.W.3d 129
Tex. App.2016Background
- FinServ parties sued Transamerica parties alleging failures to make numerous structured-settlement annuity payments and asserted extra-contractual and multiple contract-based claims; trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the extra-contractual claims and most contract claims.
- Transamerica filed interpleader for a $75,000 Taplette payment (later deposited into court registry) and asserted an offset against that payment based on a judgment against Rapid.
- Trial court struck FinServ’s Third Amended Petition for being filed after a pleading deadline set in a special-exceptions order; FinServ challenged that strike on appeal.
- A jury determined reasonable attorney’s fees; trial court awarded fees to Transamerica under the Declaratory Judgments Act and for prosecution of the interpleader action, and held FinServ jointly and severally liable.
- On appeal the court (14th Dist.) reviewed multiple issues: striking the Third Amended Petition, Transamerica’s offset/interpleader rights, entitlement to interpleader fees, segregation of fees, joint-and-several liability, and several breach-of-contract claims (notably relating to Taplette, Green, and Jones transfers).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did court err in striking Third Amended Petition (tortious-interference claims)? | Strike was improper because special exceptions did not address claims not yet pleaded and Rule 63 allowed amendment >7 days before trial. | Court had broad docket-control power and ordered repleading by deadline; petition filed after deadline could be struck. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in striking as filed after pleading deadline. |
| Did court err in granting offset that overrode FinServ’s prior liens in Taplette payment? | Offset improperly erased earlier UCC-1 liens securing Rapid’s payment rights. | Qualified-assignment / Taplette Order prohibited assignments and precluded those liens; Transamerica entitled to offset. | Overruled plaintiff: FinServ did not challenge the qualified-assignment ground, so summary judgment on offset stands. |
| Were attorneys’ fees for interpleader awardable where Transamerica asserted claims to the funds? | Transamerica is not a disinterested stakeholder (it asserted offset/claim), so cannot recover interpleader fees. | Transamerica argued entitlement to interpleader and fees. | Sustained in part: trial court erred to the extent it awarded $25,000 for prosecuting the interpleader action because Transamerica was not a disinterested stakeholder. |
| Did trial court err in awarding Declaratory Judgments Act fees, segregation of fees, and joint-and-several liability? | Various challenges: lack of explicit equity finding, failure to segregate, improper joint-and-several allocation without jury question. | Trial court implicitly found award equitable; Transamerica presented sufficiently detailed billing and segregation; joint-and-several is a legal question not for jury. | Mostly overruled: implicit equitable finding was sufficient; segregation evidence adequate; joint-and-several liability proper as a legal matter—court upheld these aspects except the interpleader-fee award. |
| Did court err in granting summary judgment dismissing breach-of-contract claims? (general) | Many contract claims inadequately specified after special exceptions; summary adjudication was improper for certain named transfers. | Defendants argued pleading deficiencies, lack of contract, lack of consideration, and other grounds. | Mixed: summary judgment proper for breach claims not tied to Taplette, Green, or Jones because pleadings failed to identify contracts; but court erred in dismissing Jones-based contract claims—those survive and were remanded. |
| Are Green-related contract claims moot because Florida court set aside Green Order? | FinServ: Green Order established obligations and Transamerica breached. | Transamerica: later Florida order voided Green Order. | Court took judicial notice of the Florida order and held Green-based claims moot; that portion of judgment vacated and appeal dismissed as to those claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (burden-shifting in traditional summary-judgment practice)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (summary-judgment evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (affirmance of summary judgment permitted if any ground is meritorious)
- Continental Casing Corp. v. Siderca Corp., 38 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (trial court discretion to strike pleadings filed after special-exceptions deadline)
- U.S. v. Ray Thomas Gravel Co., 380 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. 1964) (interpleader: disinterested stakeholder may recover attorneys’ fees)
- Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1994) (summary judgment may be granted for failure to cure pleading defects after special exceptions)
- Long v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. 2014) (attorney-fee proof requirements: services, who, rate, time)
- General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1993) (limitations on using summary judgment to resolve pleading sufficiency absent prior opportunity to amend)
- Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1996) (appellate consideration of summary-judgment grounds not ruled on by trial court when presented as cross-point)