Michel Salomon and Malena Salomon v. Isabelle (Salomon) Lesay, and Khalaf S. Khalaf, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2668

Michel and Malena Salomon purchased a Spring, Harris County house in 2004 with Michel’s sporadic residence; Malena mainly cared for Michel’s mother in France.
Isabelle Lesay, the Salomons’ ex-wife and Michel’s former spouse, filed a child support lien against Michel’s property in 2005, asserting nonexempt real property.
Lesay obtained a writ of execution and a constable’s sale was set for March 2006, prompting the Salomons to claim the property as their homestead and file for relief.
Lesay’s lien was asserted against the property’s nonexempt status; the Salomons designated the property as homestead after the lien notice, and Khalaf purchased the property at a 2007 sale.
The Salomons sued Lesay for fraudulent lien filing and Khalaf for quiet title; the trial court later struck Michel’s pleadings for failure to appear at depositions.
A two-day jury determined Malena’s interest was a homestead and Lesay did not fraudulently file the lien; the court entered a judgment allocating interests among Malena, Michel, and Khalaf, with Michel’s pleadings later struck and remanded for corrections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on fraudulent lien	Salomons contend Lesay’s lien was fraudulent.	Lesay and Khalaf argue good faith belief in nonhomestead status and lack of knowledge of fraud.	No reversible error; evidence supported the verdict that lien was not fraudulently filed.
Jury instruction on fraudulent lien	Salomons challenge omission of fraudulent 'claim' language.	Lesay argues instruction tracked §12.002; omission not reversible.	No reversible error; instruction was not likely to produce improper judgment.
Division of homestead and constitutional exemption	Trial court impermissibly gave effect to a void lien and forced sale against a family homestead.	Lesay relies on civil remedies to support relief; Khalaf argues title ownership outcomes.	Trial court erred; final judgment improperly denied homestead protections and misallocated interests; remanded for consistency with the homestead exemption.
Sanctions for failure to appear	Death penalty sanctions were unjust and not supported by nexus to conduct.	Salomons repeatedly failed to appear; lesser sanctions tried; sanctions justified.	Sanction order striking Michel’s pleadings was just; no abuse of discretion.
Pleadings conformity to Rule 301	Final judgment conformed to pleadings and verdict.	Judgment may go beyond pleadings but must reflect law and verdict.	Judgment conformed to pleadings and the verdict, with constitutional concerns to be resolved on remand.

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence review; proper standard of review)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (factual-sufficiency framework; weight of evidence)
Plas–Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1989) (evidence review; both sides considered)
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2002) (jury instructions; proper guidance to jury)
Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Urista, 211 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. 2006) (harmful charge error standard; 44.1(a) relevance)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (discovery sanctions; justification and scope)
GTE Comm. Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. 1993) (sanctions; egregious conduct and merit presume)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (death penalty sanctions; direct relationship required)
Khalaf v. Williams, 814 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. App.—Houston 1991) (pleadings and relief alignment)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (judicial correction of law application)
Denmon v. Atlas Leasing, L.L.C., 285 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (homestead; family designation; abandonment)
In re Malone, 336 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (death penalty sanctions context and appellate review)