Sue Killgore Mobley v. James A. Mobley
506 S.W.3d 87
Tex. App.2016Background
- James and Sue Mobley divorced; their June 7, 2010 mediated settlement agreement was incorporated into a final decree five days later and divided community and separate property.
- About two years later Sue sued Perry Reed and his firm alleging breach of fiduciary duty for obtaining her IRS wage/income information; she later amended to add James, alleging he may have been involved.
- James moved for partial summary judgment on Sue’s claims against him; the trial court granted it on March 7, 2012. Two days later Sue filed a voluntary nonsuit as to James; the court entered orders dismissing Sue’s claims against James without prejudice but subject to James’ ability to pursue his own affirmative claims.
- Sue later filed a bill of review challenging the divorce decree; the appeals for that and related matters were consolidated for purposes of attorney-fees hearings.
- On June 3, 2015 the trial court issued a letter ruling finding Sue’s suit against James frivolous and awarded $10,000 in attorney fees as sanctions; Sue appealed the sanctions and earlier summary-judgment issues.
- The Court of Appeals held Sue’s nonsuit mooted any appeal of the partial summary judgment but reversed the sanctions award for lack of sufficient evidence and inadequate findings supporting sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sue could appeal the partial summary judgment after voluntarily nonsuiting her claims against James | Sue pursued appellate review of the adverse partial summary judgment | James argued the nonsuit rendered the summary-judgment appeal moot and foreclosed refiling on merits issues | Mootness: nonsuit after adverse summary judgment mooted Sue’s appeal of that judgment; dismissal foreclosed refiling on those issues |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees as sanctions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 | Sue argued adding James was reasonably related to prosecuting claims against Reed and she had some factual basis; no bad faith or harassment shown | James argued Sue’s suit against him was frivolous and he was entitled to fees as sanctions | Sanctions reversed: no legally sufficient evidence that Sue acted in bad faith or to harass, and the court’s order lacked required findings |
| Whether sanctions could be upheld under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code | Sue argued pleading was not frivolous and record lacked evidentiary support for improper purpose or lack of inquiry | James asserted Chapter 10 supports fee sanctions for baseless pleadings and improper purpose | Chapter 10 sanctions reversed: court did not make required findings and evidence presented did not prove improper purpose, lack of grounds, or lack of inquiry |
| Whether trial court’s procedural deficiencies (failure to specify grounds/amount) waived or fatal on appeal | Sue contended omissions meant no valid sanction order | James relied on consolidated hearings and submissions to support award | Court found Sue waived complaint about failure to specify grounds in order (she did not object below), but she did not waive challenge to evidentiary sufficiency; on merits sanctions still reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (voluntary nonsuit after interlocutory appeal can render appellate review improper)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. 1995) (nonsuit after adverse summary judgment may operate as dismissal with prejudice as to issues decided)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (appellate review of sanctions assessed under abuse-of-discretion standard where some evidence supports trial court)
- Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (trial court should hold evidentiary hearing and make factual findings before imposing severe sanctions)
- GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. 1993) (party seeking sanctions bears burden to establish entitlement)