Olive Jean Lawrence v. Cheryl Page
01-16-00133-CV
Tex. App.Oct 13, 2016Background
- Olive Jean Lawrence (proposed ward) is an 89-year-old long‑time Houston resident with declining physical and cognitive capacity; her daughter Cheryl filed for guardianship alleging incapacity and financial exploitation by sister Lisa.
- Lisa and her family moved into Jean’s home in 2014; Jean wrote checks to Lisa totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars; significant sales of Jean’s stock occurred beginning in 2014 and accelerated in late 2015.
- Cheryl filed a verified guardianship application (Dec 21, 2015) and, after discovering Jean had been taken to Georgia and stock sold, sought a TRO and temporary injunction to restrain access to Jean’s assets.
- The trial court issued ex parte TROs, ordered an accounting, appointed counsel/ad litem, and after a hearing entered a temporary injunction and temporary guardian order; the court also denied Jean’s special appearance.
- Jean appealed, raising (1) lack of personal jurisdiction, (2) lack of reasonable notice of a hearing on the special appearance, (3) Rule 683 defect in the injunction, and (4) evidentiary sufficiency for the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cheryl) | Defendant's Argument (Jean) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction / special appearance | Texas has general jurisdiction because Jean is domiciled in Harris County (long residence, homestead, intent to return). | Jean contends she ceased to be Texas resident (moved to Georgia) before suit and trial court lacked personal jurisdiction. | Denied special appearance; court found sufficient evidence Jean remained domiciled in Texas and thus subject to general jurisdiction. |
| Notice of hearing on special appearance / due process | Cheryl relies on record and argues Jean did not timely request a hearing; no prejudice shown. | Jean argues she lacked reasonable notice of a hearing on her special appearance and was denied due process. | Rejected: Jean never timely requested a hearing under Rule 120a and showed no harm from alleged lack of notice. |
| Rule 683 (injunction must state reasons) | The injunction’s stated purpose—prevent impairment/dissipation of Jean’s assets and protect plaintiff’s interest—complies with Rule 683. | Jean contends the order fails to state reasons and injuries alleged are not irreparable (monetary damages would suffice). | Rejected: order sufficiently explains harm (impairment of interest in assets) and injunction was appropriate because monetary recovery from Lisa may be inadequate. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for temporary injunction / probable right | Cheryl presented testimony, banking/check evidence, recording, and court investigator report showing incapacity and financial exploitation; alternatives considered. | Jean argues plaintiff needed physician’s letter and proof that estate documents were void/insufficient to show guardianship necessary. | Affirmed: applicant need only present some evidence tending to support guardianship and probable right to relief; Cheryl’s evidence met that threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trenz v. Peter Paul Petroleum Co., 388 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (standard for reviewing special appearance).
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (plaintiff’s burden to plead jurisdiction; defendant must negate all bases).
- Henkel v. Emjo Invs., Ltd., 480 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (implication of facts when trial court issues no findings).
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction / "at home" standard).
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard and requirements for temporary injunction).
- Intercontinental Terminals Co. v. Vopak N. Am., Inc., 354 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (Rule 683 requirements and temporary injunction principles).
- Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P., 99 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (irreplaceable injury / adequacy of legal remedy).
- INEOS Grp. Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., LP, 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) ("some evidence" needed to show probable right of recovery).