Jeff O'Banion v. Inland Western Clear Lake Clear Shores GP, LLC and Shannon Methvin
01-15-00704-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Inland Western sued Jeff O’Banion in County Court at Law No. 1 of Galveston County to recover a debt; O’Banion asserted a third‑party claim against Shannon Methvin alleging she must indemnify him under a divorce decree.
- The case was tried to the bench; the trial court entered a judgment for Inland against O’Banion on May 15, 2015 but the judgment did not address the third‑party claim against Methvin.
- O’Banion timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law as to both Inland’s claim and his third‑party claim (Tex. R. Civ. P. 296) and later filed a notice of overdue findings (Tex. R. Civ. P. 297).
- The trial court later filed findings and conclusions but omitted any findings concerning the third‑party claim; O’Banion then requested additional, specific findings on that claim.
- O’Banion appealed; because the bench trial included evidence on the third‑party claim and a timely request for findings was made, the appellate court found the trial court had a mandatory duty to issue findings addressing that claim and had erred by failing to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on O’Banion’s third‑party claim after a bench trial and timely request | O’Banion: timely requested findings and submitted a notice of overdue findings; the court heard evidence on the claim so findings were mandatory | Implicitly: trial court’s existing judgment and findings were sufficient (or no further findings required) | The court held the trial court erred by failing to issue findings on the third‑party claim and must do so |
| Whether omission of findings is presumed harmful to appellant | O’Banion: omission forces appellant to guess reasons for adverse ruling and thus is harmful | Implicitly: record may show no harm if reasons are clear from record or judgment | Held that harm is presumed where trial court fails to respond to proper request and record does not affirmatively show no injury |
| Appropriate remedy for omitted findings after appeal filed | O’Banion: appellate court should abate and remand for required findings | Inland/Methvin: (not argued in detail) may have relied on final judgment presumption | Court ordered abatement and remand for the trial court to file findings within 30 days and supplemental clerk’s record within 5 days of those findings |
| Whether judgment might nevertheless be final or clarified without new findings | O’Banion: sought findings; alternatively court may clarify if it never intended to dispose of third‑party claim | Opposing position: final judgment presumption may apply | Court noted presumption of finality but allowed trial court to clarify judgment and ordered any clarifying orders filed within 35 days as alternative remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. 1989) (standards for remand/clarification and appellate procedure remedies)
- Northeast Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1966) (presumption of finality for judgments after trial on the merits)
- Elec. Power Design, Inc. v. R.A. Hanson Co., 821 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (failure to file requested findings is reversible unless record shows no injury)
- Acain v. International Plant Serv., LLC, 449 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (discussing when judgment and record may or may not demonstrate disposition of omitted claims)