Parham Family Limited Partnership and Van E. Parham, Jr. v. Diane Morgan F/ka/ Diane Parham
434 S.W.3d 774
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Diane Morgan (judgment creditor) sued to set aside a September 22, 2007 deed that purported to convey Lot 9 (subject property) from Parham Enterprises, Inc. (PEI) to a non-existent entity, alleging the deed was void and a fraudulent transfer undertaken to defeat her judgment against PEI.
- The recorded deed misidentified the lot and named "Parham Family Limited Partnership No. 2" (a non-existent grantee); Diane later obtained a judgment against PEI for misuse of her credit cards and abstracted that judgment.
- Diane obtained a TRO (Feb 2009) and later a temporary injunction preventing PEI from conveying the property; PEI/Rhetta filed a corrected deed and were held in contempt; Diane moved for partial summary judgment.
- On Jan 23, 2012 the trial court granted Diane's motion for partial summary judgment, declaring the Sept. 22, 2007 deed void (on declaratory and fraudulent-transfer bases); a jury later awarded Diane attorney’s fees against PEI.
- Diane sought and obtained a permanent anti-suit injunction enjoining Parham Family LP and Van Jr. from prosecuting a probate-court quiet-title "mirror" suit; PEI/Rhetta, Partnership, and Van Jr. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction of county court | Diane alleged damages within court limits and sought title/lien relief under Harris County court statute; jurisdiction proper based on claim type | Partnership/Van Jr.: property value exceeds county court limits so court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction proper under Tex. Gov't Code §25.1032 (title/lien claims); pleadings alleged amount within limits — overruled defendants' challenge |
| Standing to seek anti-suit injunction | Diane (judgment creditor) has a justiciable interest because the fraudulent-transfer statute covers creditors whose claims arose before or shortly after the transfer | Partnership/Van Jr.: Diane lacked a perfected lien and could not challenge a prior transfer to which she was not party | Court: Diane had standing; real controversy existed over whether the transfer was void and whether her judgment lien attached |
| Validity of Sept. 22, 2007 deed (declaratory & fraudulent-transfer claims) | Deed is void because grantee did not exist; alternatively deed was fraudulent transfer under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §24.005 | PEI/Rhetta: grantee effectively existed or deed could be corrected (clerical error); disputed intent/value for fraudulent-transfer defense | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — deed void because grantee did not exist; court also ruled fraudulent-transfer summary judgment proper (Rhetta’s affidavit admitted intent) |
| Injunctive relief (temporary and permanent anti-suit injunctions) | Temporary injunction preserved status quo; permanent anti-suit injunction needed to protect court's dominant jurisdiction and prevent multiplicity of suits | PEI/Rhetta: temporary injunction procedurally flawed/expired and should not be continued in final judgment; Partnership/Van Jr.: they were non-parties/intervenors struck and had right to pursue quiet-title | Court: Temporary injunction enforcement before judgment sustained, but trial court erred by carrying the temporary injunction text into the final judgment (modified). Permanent anti-suit injunction against Partnership/Van Jr. was within discretion to protect dominant jurisdiction and prevent mirror litigation |
| Attorney’s fees / segregation | Diane sought reasonable fees; jury awarded fees and conditional appellate fees | PEI: Diane failed to segregate fees; appellate fees improperly conditioned on defendant's unsuccessful appeal | Court: No objection to jury charge on segregation waived review; appellate-fee condition permissible; fee award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Carroll, 304 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent and may be raised anytime)
- Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- AIC Mgmt. v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2008) (county court jurisdiction may be based on claim type, not amount in controversy)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (liberal construction of pleadings for jurisdictional allegations)
- Lighthouse Church of Cloverleaf v. Tex. Bank, 889 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (deed void if grantee did not exist when executed)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (temporary injunctions are extraordinary and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Harper, 925 S.W.2d 649 (Tex. 1996) (grounds for anti-suit injunction: protect jurisdiction, avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent harassment)
- Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. 1997) (failure to segregate attorney’s fees can preclude recovery)