the City of Dallas v. Al Ellis
05-16-00348-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- In 1987 a City of Dallas firefighter received workers’ compensation; the City later sought reimbursement from the third‑party settlement (first‑money right).
- Attorney Al Ellis represented the injured worker, settled the third‑party case, and did not pay the City’s workers’ compensation lien; the City sued Ellis for conversion.
- A jury awarded the City judgment; trial court entered judgment on Sept. 28, 2001, later modified to a Dec. 28, 2001 final judgment; the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- The judgment became dormant (no execution within ten years). The City filed a scire facias to revive the judgment: first mistakenly revived the Sept. 28 judgment, then properly moved to revive the Dec. 28 judgment in 2015.
- The trial court initially revived the December 2001 judgment, then granted Ellis’s motion for reconsideration and vacated revival, holding the judgment remained dormant; the City appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the City met statutory requirements to revive and that neither limitations nor laches barred revival.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Ellis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §16.061 exempts the City from the 2‑year scire facias revival limit (C.P.R.C. §31.006) | §16.061 makes rights of a political subdivision not subject to §31.006, so the City may revive after two years | The City’s claim is a subrogation claim deriving from the employee’s right (not the City’s own), so §16.061 doesn’t apply and revival is time‑barred | Court held §16.061 applies; City asserts its own conversion judgment (not the employee’s personal injury claim), so limitations do not bar revival |
| Whether laches bars revival of the dormant judgment | No—City argued equitable relief to revive is proper and delay was not inequitable | Ellis claimed undue delay caused prejudice (increased post‑judgment interest, loss of civic service eligibility, reputational harm) | Court held Ellis failed to prove a good‑faith, detrimental change of position from the delay; laches does not bar revival |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. City of Dallas, 111 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003) (underlying appeal affirming conversion judgment against Ellis)
- Harris County v. Carr, 11 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (held governmental subrogation suits assert employee’s cause and are not covered by §16.061)
- Texas Dep't of Transportation v. Esquivel, 92 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002) (followed Carr on §16.061 in subrogation context)
- State of Texas v. Airgas‑Mid South, Inc., 83 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (same)
- Culver v. Pickens, 176 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1943) (describing laches as equitable defense requiring undue delay and prejudice)