William H. Scurlock v. John M. Hubbard
06-15-00014-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 23, 2015Background
- Parties: John M. Hubbard (plaintiff/appellee) and William H. Scurlock (defendant/appellant) are co‑owners/managers of Pecan Point Brewing Co. and Hubbard & Scurlock, LLC.
- Procedural posture: Trial court entered an order (Feb. 3, 2015) appointing a receiver and issuing a temporary injunction, conditioned on Hubbard posting substantial bonds; Hubbard has not yet posted the bonds and seeks bond reduction; Scurlock appealed the order.
- Core factual dispute: Hubbard, the brewery’s knowledgeable brewmaster and cofounder, was removed/terminated by Scurlock; since Hubbard’s removal no microbrew beer has been produced and Hubbard alleges exclusion from books and oppressive conduct by Scurlock.
- Trial court findings relied on statutory grounds (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 11.404) including deadlock, oppressive or wasteful conduct, and threatened irreparable injury to the business and shareholders.
- Appellee’s procedural/contentions: Hubbard argues the appeal is premature (no injunction/receivership in effect because bonds unpaid), Scurlock waived many challenges by not raising them below, and the trial court acted within its discretion in appointing a receiver and granting the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hubbard) | Defendant's Argument (Scurlock) | Held / Disposition urged by appellee brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Prematurity (bond unpaid) | Appeal is premature because Hubbard has not posted required bonds; no injunction/receivership is in effect; court should dismiss or abate. | Appeal is timely to contest the order itself. | Trial court conditioned relief on bond; appellee urges dismissal/abate for lack of jurisdiction until bond issue resolved. |
| Receivership statutory grounds (deadlock, oppression, waste) | Evidence shows deadlock, oppressive conduct, and misapplication/waste (no beer brewed, exclusion from books, bad temper). | Claims no deadlock, no proof of oppression, and lesser remedies not attempted. | Appellee contends trial court correctly found statutory basis under Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 11.404 and appointment was within discretion. |
| Preservation / Waiver of appellate complaints | Scurlock failed to timely object or move to vacate below; therefore waived appellate complaints about receiver order (bonds, oath, qualifications, lesser remedies). | Argues trial court erred on these points and they are properly before the court on interlocutory appeal. | Appellee argues preservation doctrine bars Scurlock’s challenges because he did not present specific timely objections to the trial court. |
| Temporary injunction requirements (probable injury/right; bond) | Evidence establishes probable injury and probable right of recovery (essential brewmaster role, loss of goodwill); trial court properly conditioned injunction on bonds. | Argues plaintiff failed to prove probable injury/right and that injunction lacked proper bond conditions. | Appellee argues trial court did not abuse discretion: probable injury/right shown and the order did require bonds satisfying Rules 684/695a. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abella v. Knight Oil Tools, 945 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. App. 1997) (receiver appointment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dayton Reavis Corp. v. Rampart Capital Corp., 968 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. App. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- In re Marriage of Davis, 418 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App. 2012) (preservation requirement for appellate review of receivership appointments)
- Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014) (definition/analysis of oppressive conduct by corporate managers)
- Bay Fin. Sav. Bank v. Brown, 142 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App. 2004) (accelerated appeal; unchallenged findings of fact binding unless no evidence)
- In re Talco-Bogata Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. Bond Election, 994 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. App. 1999) (probable injury/probable right standard for temporary injunctions)
- Johnson v. Barnwell Prod. Co., 391 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965) (receiver appointment without bond is voidable, not void)
- Childre v. Great Sw. Life Ins. Co., 700 S.W.2d 284 (Tex. App. 1985) (single bond may satisfy requirements for injunction and receivership)