355 S.W.3d 247
Tex. App.2011Background
- Haddy and Ana Haddy signed a contingency fee contract with Caldwell for a medical malpractice claim against William Beaumont Army Medical Center (Oct 2003).
- Caldwell filed the federal medical malpractice suit Sept 13, 2006, naming both Haddy and Ana as plaintiffs.
- The federal court granted summary judgment for the defendant on Feb 29, 2008.
- Haddy and Ana divorced in Dec 2008; Ana was not a party to the legal malpractice action against Caldwell.
- Haddy filed the instant legal malpractice suit Feb 25, 2010; he claims he learned of the alleged malpractice Aug 27, 2008.
- Caldwell moved to show authority under Rule 12 and to dismiss for lack of standing; the trial court dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing as a jurisdictional issue | Haddy argues standing exists despite divorce | Caldwell argues Haddy lacks privity/standing as derivative | Issue 1: dismissed overruled; issue resolved on standing, remand |
| Haddy has standing to sue for legal malpractice | Haddy asserts contractual privity and independent claim viability | Caldwell contends lack of standing due to derivative claim | Issue 2: Haddy has standing; remand for merits |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2008) (standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing challenged via plea to jurisdiction)
- Bland Indep. School Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standing can be raised by a motion to dismiss as jurisdictional)
- Brown v. Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2001) (standing as jurisdictional issue; burden on plaintiff)
- Clifton v. Walters, 308 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2010) (functional equivalence of dismiss for lack of jurisdiction)
- Lacy v. Bassett, 132 S.W.3d 119 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (dismissal holds jurisdictional question; standing)
- In re Labatt Food Service, L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (loss of consortium not wholly derivative; independent claim viability)
- Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1978) (loss of consortium derivative analysis)