Tom Bennett and James B. Bonham Corporation v. Larry Wayne Grant
525 S.W.3d 642
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Dispute arose from Bennett instructing ranch hand Larry Grant to sell cattle that belonged to Reynolds; Bennett was later acquitted criminally but found liable civilly for conversion in earlier litigation (Bennett I).
- Bennett later sought to criminally prosecute Grant for blackmail/extortion based on Grant’s phone call and handing photos to police; initial prosecutors in multiple counties declined to charge citing limitations or skepticism.
- Bennett procured a special prosecutor via a petition drive; a second grand jury returned indictments, but both indictments were later quashed as time‑barred by the statute of limitations.
- Grant counterclaimed for malicious prosecution; a jury awarded $10,703 in actual damages (mental anguish and attorney fees) and $1 million in exemplary damages against Bennett and Bonham Corp.; trial court also awarded sanctions against Bennett for a frivolous slander claim.
- The court of appeals affirmed actual damages and sanctions but reduced exemplary damages to $512,109 each; the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed most holdings but reversed the exemplary damages component for further remittitur review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of actual damages (mental anguish) | Grant: evidence of severe emotional distress, disruption of life supports $5,000 award | Bennett: insufficient evidence to support mental‑anguish award | Held: Affirmed; evidence (moves, fear, physical symptoms, witness testimony) supports $5,000 award |
| Exemplary damages—statutory cap exception | Grant: Chapter 41 cap inapplicable because indictment secured by deception affects pecuniary interest | Bennett: Indictment doesn’t affect pecuniary interest; cap should apply | Held: Exception applies (Penal Code §32.46), so cap inapplicable |
| Exemplary damages—constitutional excessiveness | Grant: punitive purpose justified; ratio to harm reasonable after considering potential wrongful imprisonment compensation | Bennett: Award excessive; court of appeals’ inclusion of wrongful imprisonment in potential harm was improper given limits bar | Held: Court of appeals erred by including imprisonment compensation (statute of limitations made imprisonment essentially impossible); exemplary‑damages remanded for proper remittitur |
| Joinder of Bonham Corp. | Grant: Bonham Corp. properly joined as necessary/related party for malicious prosecution claim | Bonham Corp.: Misjoinder; Rule 38(a) did not permit joinder | Held: No abuse of discretion; joinder permissible under other rules and issue waived for failure to object at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Reynolds, 315 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010) (prior opinion involving same underlying facts and punitive‑damages analysis)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (three‑guidepost test for constitutional review of punitive damages)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (due‑process limits on punitive damages; guidance on potential harm analysis)
- Nath v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (standards and considerations for remanding sanctions for reconsideration)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (limits on mental‑anguish awards; review for excessiveness)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (standards for proving mental anguish)