the Petroleum Workers Union of the Republic of Mexico v. James Gomez, as Receiver for Arriba Limited
14-14-00807-CV
Tex. App.Sep 24, 2015Background
- 1986 judgment awarded Arriba damages and fees against the Union for breach and related torts; 2004 settlement (Settlement Agreement) resolved garnished New York funds with Texas-law choice and Houston forum
- Settlement signed by Gomez (Arriba’s Receiver), Alvarez (Union attorney in fact), and Ryerson (Union’s attorney of record)
- Ryerson represented the Union in Arriba matters from 1990, continued through December 2004; Alvarez held a written power of attorney for the Union; the Union’s leadership was in turmoil due to Pemexgate indictments
- Settlement provided 52% to Gomez, 48% to the Union, plus a $1,000,000 payment to Gomez; Article IV/end to enforcement in Mexico; Article V dismissal of related litigation; Texas law governs
- Union later argued Mexican law or declarations invalidated the settlement; Arriba sought enforcement; Union asserted UFCMJRA applicability and Mexican judgment validity
- Court held: Mexican law does not apply due to Texas choice-of-law; UFCMJRA does not apply because the Mexican judgment is not a money judgment; there was legally and factually sufficient evidence of actual and apparent authority; settlement supported by consideration; no reversible errors found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for authority to contract | Arriba: Mexican law governs authority | Union: Mexican law controls authority issue | Texas law applies; Mexican law not controlling |
| UFCMJRA applicability to Mexican judgment | Arriba: UFCMJRA enforces money judgments; Mexican judgment is money judgment | Union: UFCMJRA applies and binds Arriba | UFCMJRA does not apply; Mexican Judgment is not a money judgment |
| Actual authority of Ryerson and Alvarez | Ryerson/Alvarez had actual authority to settle for Union | Union disputes agents’ authority | Evidence legally sufficient to support actual authority to enter Settlement |
| Apparent authority and reliance | Union’s lack of care misled Arriba; Arriba relied to its detriment | Apparent authority not applicable given actual authority | Even if no actual authority, apparent authority supported; in any case record supports both |
| Adequacy of consideration for Settlement | Settlement is supported by bargained-for terms | No adequate consideration | Settlement adequately supported; consideration satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (summary judgment standard and deference to jury verdicts; capstone on factual sufficiency)
- Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1984) (choice-of-law provisions generally govern the issues unless no valid clause)
- Brosseau v. Ranzau, 81 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001) (comity and estoppel considerations in foreign-judgment enforcement)
- Blockbuster, Inc. v. C-Span Entertainment, Inc., 276 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (consideration and contract formation principles in written agreements)
- Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. 1995) (jurisdictional and substantive relationship principles)
- United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (foreign-decree interpretation and deference principles)