Lea Percy McLaurin v. Scott Sutton McLaurin
01-14-00710-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 12, 2015Background
- Lea McLaurin sought enforcement of the Final Decree and an Agreement Incident to Divorce; Scott McLaurin opposed, seeking sanctions.
- Trial court found Lea’s 4th Amended Enforcement frivolous and brought in bad faith, sanctioning Lea $52,378.88.
- Multiple prior enforcement pleadings were filed and withdrawn or narrowed; substantial time and fees were incurred by Scott.
- Judge issued Final Judgment on sanctions on April 8, 2014; Lea did not supersede or pay the sanction.
- Appeal argued sanctions improper, improper preservation, and issues relating to payment deadline and sufficiency of findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lea’s suit frivolous and in bad faith, justifying sanctions? | McLaurin argues frivolous, lacking reasonable inquiry. | McLaurin contends substantial inquiry and legitimate disputes; no bad faith. | Sanctions affirmed; suit frivolous and filed in bad faith. |
| Did Lea preserve error on sanctions? | Lea claims error should be reviewed despite preservation. | Lea failed to preserve and waived objections. | Error not preserved; sanctions affirmed on merits. |
| Was the payment-date sanction deadline within trial court discretion to impose? | Lea argues improper deadline and lack of supersedeas relevance. | Court properly set a date; no supersedeas necessary unless bond posted. | Trial court within discretion; deadline affirmed. |
| Do the findings of fact and law support the sanctions order? | Lea asserts findings insufficient and overbroad. | Findings detailed and supported; independently reviewable. | Findings and evidence support sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nath v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (two-prong due-process test for sanctions)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (sanctions for lack of evidentiary support)
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 2002) (two-prong reasonableness and proportionality test)
- Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. 1996) (sanctions for baseless pleadings; Rule 13 purpose)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions)
- Bradt v. Sebek, 14 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (review of sanctions; discretion)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion framework founded in Downer)
- Gaspard v. Beadle, 36 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (particularity and grounds for sanctions)
- Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. 2006) (appellate review not bound by trial findings in sanctions)