Leigh Gomer v. Altha/Ann Steinlage, Donald Davis and Ruby Davis
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7385
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Gomer and Artall were longtime dog breeders who occasionally shared dogs; Artall obtained Gabriel in 2007 and allegedly gave him to Gomer in August 2008.
- Gomer claimed ownership and possession of Gabriel for short periods in 2008 and intermittently thereafter, while Artall retained possession most times, especially when she was ill.
- After Artall’s death in November 2010, Davis refused to surrender Gabriel to Gomer, prompting a conversion suit.
- A transfer-of-ownership form dated August 1, 2008, signed by Artall and Gomer, was admitted at trial, but Gomer did not mail it to the AKC until November 2010 and had not claimed ownership to Davis before Artall’s death.
- Gomer testified she did not expect uninterrupted possession until Artall’s death, and she acknowledged periods when Artall kept the dog; she argued Artall intended a present gift.
- The trial court granted Davis’s directed verdict and awarded $5,000 in sanctions against Gomer and her attorney; Gomer challenged both the directed verdict and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the directed verdict was proper on ownership via a gift | Gomer contends Artall transferred ownership in 2008 (gift in praesenti). | Artall retained dominion, so no present irrevocable gift existed. | Directed verdict upheld; no valid inter vivos gift established. |
| Whether Rule 13 sanctions were proper against Gomer and her counsel | Sanctions were warranted for a frivolous, groundless claim; evidence supported bad faith. | No evidentiary hearing; no proof of bad faith or harassment; sanctions improper. | Sanctions against Gomer and counsel under Rule 13 were improper; no bad-faith/harassment finding supported. |
| Whether Chapter 10 sanctions were proper against Gomer | Gomer’s pleading violated Section 10.001(2) by lacking warranted law or nonfrivolous argument. | Sanctions may be justified under 10.001; the petition lacked evidentiary support for some allegations. | Sanctions under Chapter 10 improper against Gomer; sanctions against counsel may be justified; overall partial sustainment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000) (standard for directed verdicts and legal-sufficiency review)
- Cox v. S. Garrett, L.L.C., 245 S.W.3d 574 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (directed verdict review; light favorable to non-movant)
- Smith v. Aqua-Flo, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (directed verdict evidentiary threshold)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for evaluating evidence in sufficiency reviews)
- Nipp v. Broumley, 285 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.App.-Waco 2009) (donative intent and immediate vesting in inter vivos gifts)
- Troxel v. Bishop, 201 S.W.3d 290 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (donor must intend immediate divestiture and vesting)
- Edwards v. Pena, 38 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001) (gift irrevocability and donor’s dominion control)
- Dawson v. GCSC, etc. (R.M. Dudley Constr. Co. v. Dawson), 258 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008) (evidentiary hearing required for sanctions under Rule 13)
- Mecom v. Tex.-Ohio Gas, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 129 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000) (sanctions standard for Chapter 10 investigations)
- Robson v. Gilbreath, 267 S.W.3d 401 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (sanctions necessity of bad-faith proof and hearing)