In Re Fh Partners, LLC
335 S.W.3d 752
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- FH Partners seeks mandamus to force district court to enforce a contractual jury waiver by striking the Real Parties’ jury demand in the Second Suit; the jury waiver is from the Loan and Security Agreement assigned to FH; FH contends State Bank could validly assign its rights without Real Parties’ consent and enforce the waiver; Real Parties argue assignment was invalid without consent and raise collateral estoppel concerns; the district court refused to strike the jury demand, scheduling a jury trial, and FH filed mandamus within ten days; this Court conditionally grants the writ if the district court does not comply with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FH can enforce the jury waiver via mandamus | FH (State Bank’s assignee) validly assigned rights; waiver enforceable | Real Parties contend assignment requires consent; waiver not enforceable | FH may enforce the waiver; assignment valid without Real Parties’ consent |
| Whether State Bank’s assignment of rights is valid under Texas law | General rule: contracts are assignable; no consent required | Personal trust/credit exception blocks assignment to FH | Assignment valid; no consent required; waiver enforceable by FH |
| Whether Real Parties’ reliance on personal trust/credit exc eption applies to creditor’s rights | Exception does not apply to creditor’s right to receive payment | The contract relies on personal trust/credit; may bar assignment | Exception does not apply to creditor’s right; rights are freely assignable Conclusion: FH can enforce jury waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus to enforce contractual jury waiver not barred by public policy)
- Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993) (implied waiver analysis for mandamus relief guidance)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (contextual evidence for evaluating conduct and timing)
- Dittman v. Model Baking Co., 271 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1925) (concept of personal trust/credit exception to assignment)
- Gandy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 925 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1996) (general rule that debts and assignable rights can be assigned; discusses assignability)
- Vernor v. Southwest Fed. Land Bank, 77 S.W.3d 364 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002) (creditor’s right to receive payment not within personal trust/credit exception)
- Menger v. Ward, 30 S.W. 853 (Tex. 1895) (creditor’s permission and personal confidence considerations in assignment)