in the Matter of the Marriage of Eleanor Fox Davis and William Barnes Davis
418 S.W.3d 684
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- A Rule 11 agreement in a divorce led to appointing a receiver to manage Fox Crest Farm, LLC assets.
- Fox Crest Farm, LLC was owned and informally managed by William and Eleanor, with no LLC formalities observed.
- Receiver Reneau Anders was appointed Sept. 30, 2011 to sell and manage listed property; a later nunc pro tunc order on Nov. 28, 2011 expanded the scope to include LLC assets.
- William challenged oath of office for the receiver, the November 28 order’s substantive changes, and inclusion of LLC property without LLC party status.
- LLC assets were interpled into court for dissolution; there was contention over higher bids and whether the LLC should have been before the court.
- Appellate review affirmed the trial court’s order; a concurrence cautioned about LLC-formality boundaries and the timing of LLC party status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of oath/qualification challenges to the receiver | Davis argues Anders was not sworn and not qualified. | Anders is qualified; oath issue raised too late. | Preservation failed; issue not reviewable; Anders qualified. |
| Validity of the November 28 nunc pro tunc order and expanded power | Order made substantive changes beyond Sept. 30 order. | Interlocutory context allowed trial court to modify. | Issue unpreserved; not addressed on merits. |
| Inclusion of LLC property under receivership | LLC was not properly before court; property beyond party/LLC scope. | Rule 11 agreement bound LLC; parties consented to receivership of LLC assets. | Rule 11 binding; LLC property properly within receivership. |
| Anders’ qualifications under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 64.021 | Challenge that Anders lacked eligibility (citizenship/residency/voter status). | Anders previously found qualified; challenge raised late. | Preservation failed; Anders qualified. |
Key Cases Cited
- B & W Cattle Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Hereford, 692 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1985) (party cannot challenge jurisdiction after invoking receiver)
- Cross v. Cross, 738 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987) (reiterates limitations on challenging proceedings after consent)
- Logan v. Mauk, 126 S.W.2d 513 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1939) (consent to order prevents later objections)
- Bulington v. State, 179 S.W.3d 223 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (preservation limitations in appellate review)
- Pena v. Sell, 760 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1988) (treats preservation principles in appeals)