Gregory B. Baten Trust, Intervenor v. Branch Banking and Trust Company and Richard W. Heath
05-14-00133-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 10, 2015Background
- BB&T obtained a post-judgment writ of garnishment against Richard Heath, alleging Heath held $178,000 in proceeds belonging to judgment debtor Britannia Construction, LLC (through its registered agent Mark Godson).
- Heath answered admitting indebtedness to Godson in the amount of $178,000.
- Gregory B. Baten Trust (Trust) intervened, claiming Godson had agreed to pay Trust $100,000 from the chattel-sale proceeds (the “Chattel Contract”) as consideration for Trust releasing a prior lien on Godson’s house; Trust said it never received that $100,000.
- Trust sought to have garnished funds deposited into the court registry or otherwise protected and attached an affidavit from Gregory Baten asserting the $100,000 promise and that the garnished funds included Trust’s share.
- BB&T (and Heath) moved to strike Trust’s intervention; the trial court granted the motion and later entered final judgment favoring BB&T recovering funds from Heath.
- Trust appealed only the order striking its intervention and other trial rulings; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether Trust had a justiciable interest sufficient to intervene in the garnishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking Trust’s petition in intervention | Trust: Baten affidavit shows Trust has an ownership/equitable interest in garnished funds ($100,000) and thus may intervene | BB&T/Heath: Trust’s claims do not show ownership or a subsisting right to the funds; intervention would improperly expand issues | Court: No abuse of discretion — Trust failed to show justiciable interest to intervene |
| Whether Trust could have brought the garnishment action in its own name | Trust: Could have sued or intervened because it was owed funds from the Chattel Contract proceeds | BB&T/Heath: Trust’s claim is a separate contract claim against Godson, not an ownership or third‑party beneficiary claim to the garnished funds | Court: Trust could not have brought the garnishment in its own name; its remedy is a separate suit against Godson |
| Whether Trust could defeat recovery if the action had been brought against it | Trust: By claiming an interest in the funds, it could defeat BB&T’s recovery to the extent of its claim | BB&T/Heath: Trust lacks a legal or equitable interest in the garnished funds sufficient to defeat recovery | Court: Trust could not defeat recovery; it did not show a preexisting legal/equitable right to the funds |
| Whether Trust may appeal other trial-court rulings after being stricken pre-judgment | Trust: Challenges remaining rulings and evidentiary rulings | BB&T/Heath: Once stricken before final judgment, Trust is no longer a party and cannot appeal those rulings | Court: Trust cannot appeal other complaints because it was dismissed prior to final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Brauss v. Triple M Holding GmbH, 411 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (standard: abuse of discretion review for striking intervention)
- Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (intervention requires interest that could have supported suit in intervenor’s name or defeat recovery)
- In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (intervenor must show justiciable interest to remain in garnishment)
- Exterior Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. [Name omitted in opinion], 270 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (party claiming ownership of garnished property may intervene to assert ownership)
- In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2006) (only parties of record may generally appeal final judgments)