Hansen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4455
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- This suit concerns the administration of Jeanne Stratton Hansen's estate with Chase named as executor.
- Hansens objected to Chase's authority to sell decedent's Richardson, Texas house, delaying closing with third party Adam Moore.
- Moore later assigned his contract rights to Mark Hansen; the house ultimately closed and Hansens became the purchasers.
- Chase amended its pleadings after the closing to drop substantive declaratory relief but sought attorneys' fees.
- Cramer sought attorneys' fees and requested fees against the Hansens or Mark Hansen's share, keeping some live issues.
- Hansens argued mootness due to sale and
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case was mooted by the sale of the house | Chase's fee claims kept the case live | Mootness applicable; no live relief substance | No; fees keep live declaratory-judgments claim |
| Whether the visiting judge erred in denying recusal | Recusal necessary due to impartiality concerns with the judge | Judge did not display bias; ten-day rule and evidence insufficient | No; recusal denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Camarena v. Texas Employment Commission, 754 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. 1988) (fee claim can prevent mootness under UDJA and waivers of immunity)
- Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Service Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993) (mootness of underlying claims can bar fee recovery under TCHRA; distinguishable from UDJA)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2005) (UDJA fee claim keeps case alive even if substantive relief becomes moot)