Prince v. American Bank of Texas
359 S.W.3d 380
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Prince, a pro se inmate, challenged the trial court's order sustaining American Bank of Texas's contest to his affidavit of indigence.
- The contest hearing occurred on June 30, 2011; Judge noted Prince did not appear and that Bank had given him a hearing notice with delivery via jail.
- The court found Prince had waived appearance and sustained the contest based on Bank's evidence and deposition testimony from Prince's wife.
- Prince later alleged he did not receive timely notice; he attached an inmate form claiming delivery on July 8, 2011.
- This Court ordered the trial court to resolve whether notice was properly effected, using Prince's July/August submissions as evidence.
- The trial court later determined service was properly effected; Prince appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was notice of the contest hearing properly effected? | Prince contends notice was not timely received. | Bank asserts delivery to jail on June 27; Prince waived appearance. | No abuse; service properly effected. |
| Was the trial court's sustaining of the contest supported by some evidence despite conflicting proofs? | Prince argues evidence shows non-receipt and lack of proper notice. | Court may disbelieve Prince's evidence and credit Bank's evidence. | Some evidence supports the court; no abuse of discretion. |
| Did the potential telephonic appearance issue or continuance prejudice Prince's ability to challenge the notice ruling? | Prince sought telephonic appearance and continuance to present evidence. | Court need not grant telephonic appearance if not shown to affect outcome. | No prejudice shown; rejection of arguments stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. Ashton, 29 S.W.3d 896 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000) (implicit service requires actual receipt by the party)
- In re A.R., 236 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007) (trial court credibility ruling given deference when conflicting evidence exists)
- Basaldua v. Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for affidavit of indigence)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review; some evidence supports trial court)