R.H. v. Smith Ex Rel. C.H.
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2702
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Father R.H. settled a wrongful death claim arising from an auto accident; Faraday's insurer paid remaining proceeds after medical liens.
- Grandparents, as legal custodians, sought to represent C.H. (a minor) and hired Palmer; Starr represented Father individually and as next friend of C.H.
- Family court ordered Grandparents as joint managing conservators with exclusive right to represent C.H. in legal matters; Palmer represented Grandparents and C.H. in the case.
- Mediation in Oct 2008 produced a settlement allocating most proceeds to Father and C.H., with no separate attorney fee allocation stated in the agreement.
- After mediation, Starr sought a contingency fee from C.H.’s portion; dispute arose about who represented C.H. and the amount of fees from her recovery.
- Hearing on authority (Rule 12) established that Palmer represented C.H. at mediation; final judgment distributed C.H.’s funds over a structured annuity, with Palmer’s fees reflected in the payout.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether final judgment complied with mediation | Father: final judgment rewrote agreement, improperly reallocating to Palmer. | Appellees: final judgment reflects math of settlement and approved fees; compliant with agreement. | Final judgment was in strict compliance with the settlement. |
| Whether the court abused discretion in granting Rule 12 motion to show authority | Starr had authority to represent C.H.; Grandparents failed to show lack of authority. | Palmer/Grandparents showed Grandparents held exclusive authority; Starr lacked authority to represent C.H. | No abuse; court properly found Palmer represented C.H. and granted the rule 12 motion. |
| Whether findings of fact and conclusions of law were required and/or overlooked | Court should have made explicit findings and conclusions to support rulings. | Record shows sufficient basis; no harm from absence of explicit findings because issues were straightforward. | Required findings were addressed; no reversible error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 876 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994) (case defining 'trial' for Rule 296 findings)
- Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. 1989) (foundations for Rule 296 findings in mediated judgments)
- IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) (findings and conclusions can be considered on appeal when judgment rests on evidentiary matters)
- Vickrey v. Am. Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1976) (final judgment must be in strict compliance with mediated settlement; binding when no substantial alteration)
- Magallanes v. Cherne Indus., 763 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (finding-and-conclusion requirement applies when appeal from judgment based on evidentiary hearings)
- Beyers v. Roberts, 199 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (limits on when a judgment may be reversed for misalignment with settlement terms)