Webb v. Stockford
331 S.W.3d 169
Tex. App.2011Background
- Webbs bought a house from Faith Werner; Werner’s agent was Linda Ault.
- The Webbs discovered roof and interior water damage soon after moving in and believed Werner and Ault misrepresented or failed to disclose issues.
- The Webbs hired attorney David McCreary, who referred the case to Stockford, who filed suit in June 2003.
- Stockford later nonsuited the underlying action without prejudice, and the case was not refiled.
- The Webbs sued Stockford for legal malpractice, claiming his handling caused them to forgo a valid, collectible judgment against Werner and Ault; at trial, the jury found Stockford negligent and that the Webbs would have recovered $225,000 in the underlying suit if prosecuted properly; the trial court granted JNOV for Stockford, and the Webbs appealed.
- The appellate court held there was no evidence Ault misrepresented or failed to disclose, and no evidence that any underlying judgment would have been collectible, thus no causation evidence to support damages from Stockford’s alleged negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ault make any misrepresentation or omission? | Webbs: yes, Ault misrepresented/omitted about water damage. | Stockford: no evidence Ault misrepresented or failed to disclose. | No substantial evidence of misrepresentation by Ault. |
| Was any underlying judgment against Werner collectible? | Webbs: collectibility shown by solvency evidence. | Stockford: insufficient evidence of collectibility. | Webbs failed to prove collectibility of a Werner judgment. |
| Did Stockford’s negligence proximately cause damages via the suit-within-a-suit rule? | Webbs would have prevailed and collected if underlying suit properly prosecuted. | No evidence that Webbs would have obtained a collectible judgment. | No evidence of recoverable damages; JNOV affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Res. Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (suit-within-a-suit damages burden)
- Schlager v. Clements, 939 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (suit-within-a-suit doctrine guidance)
- Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex.2006) (elements of legal malpractice; proximate cause)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review of JNOV)
- Gomez v. Hagood, 2000 WL 992287 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000) (suit-within-a-suit authority cited (unpublished WL not used))
- FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Nat'l Dev. & Res. Corp., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex.2001) (economic damages in malpractice where underlying suit is involved)
- Marshall v. Kusch, 84 S.W.3d 781 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002) (duty to disclose; silence as misrepresentation)
- Vela v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3d 750 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000) (misrepresentation elements; duty to disclose)