Lurea Hornbuckle v. State Farm Insurance and David Kirkpatrick
02-15-00387-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Hornbuckle insured a house with State Farm and previously sued State Farm and adjuster Jerry Thompson over two claims (one for May 28, 2012 water damage and one for June 7, 2013 damage to personal property in storage).
- In December 2013 Hornbuckle and her son executed a notarized settlement and release for $15,000 that expressly released State Farm, Thompson, and David Kirkpatrick and dismissed the prior suit with prejudice.
- About a year later Hornbuckle sued Appellees in JP court asserting claims arising from the June 7, 2013 claim (43‑20M3‑024); Appellees asserted settlement and release as an affirmative defense.
- Appellees obtained summary judgment in the JP court; Hornbuckle sought de novo review in the county court at law, where Appellees again moved for traditional summary judgment relying on the settlement, payment, and prior dismissal.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees; Hornbuckle appealed pro se raising seven issues that the appellate court found incoherent and inadequately briefed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of due process / right to jury | Hornbuckle contends summary-judgment procedure deprived her of due process and jury trial | Summary judgment was procedurally proper; prior release and dismissal barred claims | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
| 2. Hearsay re: inspection evidence | Hornbuckle asserts inspection evidence was hearsay and improperly used | Any inspection evidence concerned the prior resolved claim; release bars relitigation | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
| 3. Attorney’s handling of $15,000 check | Hornbuckle complains about counsel’s endorsement/handling of settlement check | Settlement payment was made and accepted; release executed and notarized | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
| 4. Vexatious-litigant ruling complaint | Hornbuckle challenges a vexatious-litigant ruling from prior court | Defendants point to prior litigation history and final dismissal | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
| 5. Alleged fraud / ethical violations by defense counsel | Hornbuckle alleges defendants’ lawyers committed fraud and avoided jury trial via summary judgment | Defendants relied on settlement and proper summary-judgment procedure | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
| 6. Allegation that summary-judgment evidence was false | Hornbuckle contends all summary-judgment evidence was deceitful | Defendants produced settlement, payment, and dismissal records supporting release defense | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
| 7. Summary judgment used to avoid discovery/trial | Hornbuckle argues summary judgment was filed to avoid trial and discovery | Summary judgment is a recognized procedural device and was supported by the release evidence | Waived for inadequate briefing; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same standards as represented parties)
- ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010) (appellate briefing must be adequate)
- Mullendore v. Muehlstein, 441 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (court not required to brief issues for appellant)
- Magana v. Citibank, N.A., 454 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (inadequate briefing waives issue)
- WorldPeace v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (failure to cite authority or record waives issue)
- Devine v. Dallas Cty., 130 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (issues inadequately briefed are waived)
- Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (error may be waived due to inadequate briefing)
- Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (appellant must discuss facts and authorities)
- Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1979) (summary judgment and other procedural devices do not violate the right to jury trial)