Lori Becker-White and Carol Gould v. C. Greg Goodrum
14-13-01000-CV
| Tex. | Jul 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff C. Greg Goodrum, an attorney, sued Lori Becker-White and Carol Gould (the "Gould Parties") for unpaid attorney’s fees totaling $16,084.82, invoking the sworn-account procedure under Tex. R. Civ. P. 185.
- Goodrum attached a sworn affidavit and an itemized account to his petition, showing the claimed balance and deductions for prior payments exceeding $25,000.
- The Gould Parties did not file a sworn denial of the account and failed to respond to Goodrum’s requests for disclosure.
- At bench trial the Gould Parties attempted to call Becker-White and their counsel as an expert; the trial court excluded those witnesses for failures in disclosure and designation, and the court also did not allow the third-party claim against Goodrum’s wife to proceed (no service or appearance shown).
- Trial court entered judgment for Goodrum for the unpaid account, attorney’s fees, and postjudgment interest; Gould Parties’ counterclaims were dismissed.
- On appeal the Gould Parties challenged (1) sufficiency of the Rule 185 affidavit, (2–4) exclusion of evidence and denial of ability to present defenses/counterclaims, and (5) denial of third-party claims; Goodrum sought appellate damages under Tex. R. App. P. 45.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Rule 185 affidavit | Goodrum: affidavit complied strictly with Rule 185 and established prima facie entitlement to judgment because no sworn denial was filed | Gould: affidavit omitted >$20,000 of alleged payments and thus failed Rule 185 requirements | Affirmed — affidavit satisfied Rule 185; unsworn denials by Gould do not defeat compliance |
| Exclusion of evidence for discovery failures | Goodrum: witnesses were not disclosed or designated as required; exclusion was proper | Gould: exclusion prevented them from proving affirmative defenses and counterclaims | Affirmed — Gould failed to preserve complaint because no offer of proof; exclusion not reversible error |
| Third-party claim against Goodrum’s wife (service/default) | Goodrum: third party never appeared or was served; claim not pursued | Gould: trial court erred in preventing pursuit of third-party claims | Affirmed — error not preserved; record shows no service, waiver, appearance, or default judgment attempt |
| Request for Rule 45 appellate damages | Goodrum: appeal (or at least issue five) is frivolous and merits just damages | Gould: appeal not frivolous (implicit) | Denied — court declines to award Rule 45 damages after objective review; discretion not exercised in favor of damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Management Services, Inc. v. SM Energy Co., 398 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (Rule 185 strict-compliance and effect of no sworn denial)
- PennWell Corp. v. Ken Associates, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (same)
- Glassman v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (standard for awarding appellate damages under Tex. R. App. P. 45)
- Meek v. Onstad, 430 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (preservation requirements for appellate complaints about third-party claims)