Jeanes v. Hamby

in this wоn a case AKIN, Before SPARLING and GUIL- indemnity against the two other share- LOT, JJ. for their holders liabilities to Jeanes. Thereafter, attempted Jeanes to collect on AKIN, Justice. means, judgment by his numerous includ- appeals Jack K. summary judg- Jeanes a ing garnishment appellees’ judgment of of declaring ment that Jeanes released Paul Jones, indemnity against O.K. one of the Hamby M. and Charles from C. Shaver other Gar-Dal shareholders. liability on priоr judgment by a obtained present appeal appellees arose when Jeanes against on a note of indebtedness garnishment brought intervened a them ap- and others. Additionally, Jeanes against by seeking Jeanes Jones satisfac- peals finding a that Jeanes’ counterclaim judgment tion his against appellees. of Shaver, for against Hamby, fraud and R.L. alleged Appellees plea in their in interven- McSpeddеn precluded of as a matter tion, garnishment later severed from the by law judi- the affirmative defenses of res proceeding, judgment against that Jeanes’ cata By and the statute of limitations. appellees on the note had been extin- cross-point, Hamby and Shaver contend guished when garnished appellees’ Jeanes that the judge grant trial erred in failing to judgment against indemnity of Jones. summary judgment against them However, beforе this of cause action was their breach upon of contract claim based severed, documents, Jeanes executed two prior judgment by releases of the executed releases, prom- to as referred wherein he Jeanes. judge prop- We hold that the trial forego legal against ised to all recourse erly summary judgment against rendered Hamby including appellees appellees on their breach of claim contract pursuant efforts to collect from them to his by the releases were supported note, judgment pay- on the in return for consideration. also hold We that the trial $100,000, less ment of which was than Je- judge declaring erred in binding valid and Nevertheless, Jeanes la- releases, signed by Jeanes, pur- which ter in this suit counterclaimed ported to Hamby relieve of Shaver these releases declared unenforсeable. judgment debt to Jeanes. Additional- ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‍ly, we hold that the court erred summari- respect, this Jeanes contends ly ordering nothing that Jeanes take for erred in sum damages allegedly resulting appel- from mary judgment Hamby for Shaver on lees’ fraud because neither nor of of validity the issue the releases precludes the statute of limitations reasons, because, among releases Consequently, judg- suit. we affirm the supported by were not consideration. We respect appel- ment with to the denial of agree. It well settled that the against lee’s breach of contract claim Je- of less than full amount anes reverse and render the but cannot debt alone be consideration respect void As releases. Akin, Blaylock accord and satisfaction. fraud, is re- Jeanes’ suit for (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d — Texarkana versed and remanded trial. n.r.e.); Hall, ref’d Rеeves guarantors Appellees on a note were — Austin $150,000 writ). case, by undisputed made this loan it is that an evidenced Inc., Gar-Dal, $100,000 of company unpaid Jeanes to amount over remained shareholders. held were Gar-Dal Consequently, pay note. Gar- defaulted on the Jeanes sued Shaver. shareholders, including by Hamby to Jeanes Dal and its five Shaver of $100,000 personally guaranteed is not appellees, had consideration that will who releases, support rendering thereby pleadings even if their Although action, these releases alleged invalid. cause the releases correctly rule note in signed by do not state that debts, Blaylock applies only liquidated signed were in consideration of disagree we with their characterization Instead, terminating any cause of action. unliquidated as an obli- debt merely state that re releases gаtion. support Their sole for this conten- leased and Shaver from claims tion is at signed the time Jeanes prior held him virtue of Jeanes’ releases, litigation concerning pending do ment and nowhere the releases mention debt whether the additional consideration form a by appellees owed extin- Jeanes was any controversy, from release guished garnishment of their claims, held or actions him Ham- against pleаd- Jones. But the mere by or the Shaver. because re ing allegation of such an does not convert unambiguous, any attempt by leases are liquidated arising final debt from a valid Hamby prove and to the re Shaver that unliquidated put judgment into an debt or signed by in return for leases were obligation respect, in dispute. the In this not additional consideration mentioned not we note that and Shaver did parol the releases would violate the evi allege judgment sat- that Jeanes’ had been dence rule. Crozier v. Horne Children garnishment isfied the of their from Trust, Educational Maintenance and indemnity against ment of Further- Jones. (Tex.App. Antonio — San more, authority, have appellees cite no nor $100,000 n.r.e.). Because the writ ref’d any, support theory to that we found only for payment was consideration obligation mere ow- garnishment greater judgment release of debt еxtinguishes the ing judgment to a debtor law, amount, as a matter we hold to debt owed the holder of supported by con not these releases were Consequently, we hold that the releases are, therefore, invalid sideration for lack of executed Jeanes were invalid discharge to Jeanes’ unenforceable consideration. of release ment. the contracts are Because Nevertheless, Hamby pеrsist invalid, appellees’ cross-point which contending Blaylock is control- that not allowing in not that the court erred contend ling Jeanes received consideration proceed against Jeanes for breach them to $100,000 payment for Je- than the without merit. agreement also of that According signature on the releases. the releases of held that Since we have received Jeanes’ to lack of invаlid for consid- judgment are support the releas- which will consideration eration, unnecessary to address Je- it is promise by Hamby and in the form of a es attacking the points of error anes’ other attempts forego their Shaver turn to the releases. We now validity of extinguished. declared Jeanes’ the trial of whether for basis disagree because We erred in on founded attempts were these he that had pleading on his that the allegations and Shaver’s In appellees. all three been defrauded gar- extinguished when was debt respect, the record shows that this by Hamby judgment held nished the wrong- specifically alleged that previous- noted against Jones. As Shaver conspired loans from fully to obtain opinion that cause not of the ly, we are Gar-Dal, intent to Inc. with behalf of pleaded on against Jeanes action and to hinder payment when duе withhold ex- Consequently, no consideration issue. might he any collection Hamby and could isted because pressure him so as to legal rights on the note obtain have abandoned said to be in this signing into the releases involved attempt to have foregoing their Jeanes, appeal. According extinguished. concealed and quantum meruit). secreted their for assets a suit on Gilbert purpose of delaying efforts, Inc., his Enterprises, collection Fireside and this concealment is evidenced 879-80 — Dallas fact that Hamby and writ), Shaver were able to judicata noted we is a harsh $100,000 deliver the in cash at time doctrine, narrowly applied should be agreed when he had even release light with caution. of Griffin though previous attempts extensive to Gilbert, though we hold that even Jeanes’ discover satisfy assets to conspiracy cause of action for fraudulеnt been unsuccessful. arose from some of the events same gave original appel- rise In considering point with re note, lees the two caus spect to his cause of action upon es of depend action the determination him, to defraud we first note the bur of altogether legal different factual and den on appellees, movants, estab questions and sufficiently distinct so as lish pre that Jeanes’ cause оf action was prevent the doctrine of res from cluded, law, as a matter of at as to least precluding Jeanes’ suit. one essential element of Jeanes’ cause of Tucker, action.1 Williamson v. limitations, As to the statute of S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas unpersuaded we are by appellees’ argu n.r.e.). Appellees writ ref’d do not contend ment that Jeanes’ cause of for fraud action that have met this burden because conspiracy by ulent applica was barred the they argue that Jeanes’ of cause action was respect, appellees ble In this statute. ar barred the doctrine of res gue Jeanes filed on that his fraud claim limitations, the statute of both of April 7, year and the of two statute are affirmative defenses. in the limitations commenced 1975 when loan respect judgment. note was reduced to But judicata, aр- With to res pellees argue the already theory that record shows that of Jeanes had day appellees’ in his court when fraudulent consisted of origi he obtained his conduct judgment goal nal allegation conspir on the his that appellees note the of acy signature and that Jeanes pursued should have his was obtain his on con allegation conspiracy appellees defraud in tracts which would ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‍reliеve of the agree that any obligations suit. We cannot Je- full because amount of owed allegations out, points assert a continuing signed fraud Jeanes. As he conspiracy by ulent releasing Hamby to assure on documents recoup money July 19, that he would never in argues his that the ob continuing the form of by appellees taining signature actions these of on docu prevent collection of his Res ments in of overt act furthеrance judicata precludes litigation conspiracy, of causes of the since it occurred within which, diligence, filing suit, with use years action the of two of the of fraud adjudicated prior could have been in a cause of action was not barred the stat parties. the same That is ute Harang between doctrine of limitations. See v. Aetna if only applicable questions issue in Company, at 400 S.W.2d 810 Insurance Life to, the first suit сonstituted a defense or a ref’d — Houston of, adjudicat n.r.e.). Nevertheless, finally part a cause action contend America, Holiday summary-judg ed. Inns that Jeanes failed to tender Griffin (a (Tex.1973) final ment in evidence to overcome the rule that be judgment on the merits an action fraud case statute of limitations preclude gins of contract did not later to run when the victim knew or should breach action, events, form based on related have known that he had defrauded. been already pass judgment do on the of whether he has 1. We not recovered his note. damages has a cause of action for when agree Court). We Obviously, equity if the law or Jeanes because when overt acts in furtherance of a de- that the interest should be com- required fraud years filing occur within two pounded annually, judge ren- trial who suit, that suit barred limita- judgment so the earlier would have dered tions. on appel- the burden was provided judgment. Accordingly, in that lees by summary-judgment to establish evi- correctly judge in this case refus- the trial pre- dence that Jeanes’ counterclaim was prior judgment. ed to disturb the Williamson, cluded as a matter of law. summary, we reverse supra. Accordingly, we hold that the trial granted by judge the trial judge summary judgment in granting erred declar- favor of Jeanes render on Jeanes’ suit for fraud. ing that the releases executed Finally, we consider Jeanes’ ar We re- are TEX.R.CIV.P. 434. also void. gument that erred in re the trial and remand trial verse declare, fusing pursuant to his counter against ap- Jeanes’ counterclaim denying claim, interest on his post-judgment respects, In all pellees for fraud. original judgment against ap- on the note is affirmed. Costs assessed 10%, pellees at the rate should accrue appellees. compounded annually. prin question provides that interest GUILLOT, J., dissenting. cipal accrue at amounts should awarded per from the date of the rate of annum 10% GUILLOT, Justice, dissenting. argues paid. until I would respectfully dissent. While I should have declared that court improperly granted court hold that annually compound interest should Hamby, summary judgment to per annum at the award of interest 10% there is hold McSpedden, would “spirit” contrary to the re- faсt issue to whether material agree. In the first We cannot ment. gave and Shav- which Jeanes leases provide for judgment does not place, the I would further hold er valid. were To hold as compounded annually. interest action Jeanes’ cause of barred us do would be Jeanes would have However, to defraud. for final language clear change the disposition of Je- agree majority’s jurisdic ment, judge lacked the triаl post-judgment regarding contention place, law second tion do. interest. j interest, compound does- hot favor i rendition of additional I believe an equity requires when allowed will be attempt to suc- I shall NicoSia, is in order. facts Fraternity v. E.g. Grand it. chronological out in the cinctly set them — Waco ap- to this led Alexander, pleadings order of n.r.e.) (per Justice writ ref’d peal. Supreme the Texas later Justice Chief $150,000 January 1975. loans to Gar-Dal 1. Jeanes Inc. guaranteed by Hamby, and the is loan Shaver, Hunt, McSpedden, and Jones. Additionally Hamby, Jones indemnifies Shaver, McSpedden or and loss February 1977. Inc. defaults Jeanes re- Cause #75-5721-D 2. Gar-Dal and against Hamby, covers Shaver, Hunt, McSpedden, and Jones. Shaver, Hamby, McSpedden and re- indemnity cover Jones. garnishing September 1977. files suit Cause #77-9732-C 3. Jeanes Shaver, Hamby, ment debt of Jones McSpedden. and Spring ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‍4. 1978. files suit to estаblish lien on Cause #78-2019-E joint Jones’ interest venture. Hamby, Shaver, 5. McSpedden December 1978. and inter- Cause #78-2019-E vene, alleging gar- when Jeanes judgment against Jones, nished their Hamby, the debt of and Mc- Spedden merged garnish- into the thereby and was can- celed. July 6. pay 1979. and $100,000 for a release. August pays $75,000 7. 1979. Jones for a re- lease from in Cause #75-5721-D. 8. Hamby, Shaver, November 1979. The intervention McSpedden severed re-dock- eted #80-523-E. July 9. 1980. alleging Jeanes files counterclaim that Cause #80-523-E given by Hamby the releases Shaver are not valid. Hamby, Shaver, 10. McSpedden December 1982. file Cause #80-523-E petition seeking damages amended fraud and breach of contract They Jeanes. seek a also declaratory action be denied. February 11. 1983. petition files fourth amended Cause #80-523-E seeking declaratory judgment that re- given by Hamby leases and Shaver are seeking damages invalid and for frаud conspiracy. February Judgment 12. declaring is entered that the Cause #80-523-E signed by Hamby releases denying are valid and all other relief. point error, dated, his first was, fact, liquidated. con it tends that the in declaring court erred argue unliq- Shaver do not that it was uidated, releases from to Jeanes be valid disputed. because but rather than it was they supported either by Hamby argue were not consider and Shaver that considera- law, ation аs summary- a matter of or the tion for the releases existed due to their (1) evidence was insufficient to es claims that the debt was merged tablish as a garnishment consideration matter of law. as a of the result majority by Jeanes; (2) The holds that there nowas con actions that no sum or credit given garnishment sideration these releases as a matter of had been to the ment; (3) says Hamby law. It that debts of pending litigation the and that there wаs liquidated undisputed, by and parties Shaver were and initiated at the time of both the thus, settlement; pay (4) part not exist for litiga- consideration did and that of the pending them of a lesser amount. Indus tion that was a claim Jeanes had Finley, conspired appellees by Insurance Co. v. 382 attempt- defraud Life 100, (Tex.1964); Blaylock ing S.W.2d 104 they to settle a that Akin, (Tex.Civ.App against party 619 S.W.2d a third without their 207 knowl- . —Tex 1981, n.r.e.). Thus, majori edge. good arkana writ ref 'd disputе there was faith that, ty says although Hamby parties amount, between the as what if argued unliqui- any, Hamby that the debt was and Shaver owed Jeanes. 1949, ref’d). Contrary assertion, That is- majority’s App. to the the Paso —El releases do question precluding mention in addi- sum- consideration raises a fact sue non-monetary tion to the consideration mary judgment. mentioned above. The release states error, points and third of second part: pеrtinent that the erred contends court Jeanes NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDER- summary judgment ATION of the of One Hundred the releases were invalid. Jeanes ($100,000.00),by Ham- Dollars Thousand they argues that exists that were evidence Jeanes, by and receipt Shaver to of which duress; him under obtained from economic Jeanes, hereby acknowledged is Je- contracts; they that were adhesion anes does here and now release forever by illegal were means obtained whatsoever, any any claims of nature conspir- an and in furtherance of unlawful any or held or known unknown argues con- acy. Jeanes further the assigns, against Hamby of his Shav- spiracy to claim was not barred defraud er. These ar- appellees’ affirmative defenses. assertion, Contrary majority’s to the merit. guments without parol rule does not admission evidence bar Releases duress are voida obtained contemporaneous agreement, collater of Co., ble. Mitchell v. C.C. Sanitation integrated agreement, an is al to 933, (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d nor varies or contradicts

inconsistent with — Houston n.r.e.). 1968, Eco writ ref’d obligations Dist.] express implied [14th terms or or Bank, may only when be claimed nomic duress thereof. Hubacek v. Ennis State (1958). it 30, party whom was claimed 159 Tex. 317 S.W.2d non-monetary dis Here, responsible the claimant’s financial of evidence Savings First Association Texas consideration is not inconsistent tress. Center, Inc., the releas Dallas v. Dicker does not contradict terms of explained the cir This evidence no (Tex.App. Tyler es. 185-86 — surrounding execution writ). cumstances there evidence my opinion, is no releases, the “claims” to which responsible for the were Fuel Co. releases refer. Texas Utilities financial condition stress ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‍Dallas, 615 Bank in First National pursue unprofitable for him to made it argues. as legal procedures, further — Dallas 1981, writ). a fact hold there is would after interesting to note It (cid:127) owed question as to whether amount signed, Jeanes did find release was disput by Hamby and Shaver was docu validity of that money litigate ed. Thus, du as any claim to economic ment. may be a bona dispute record. in fact in this ress is without basis fide here, law; question predicated upon adhesion, did not raise As to law was whether being in as fact issue and Shaver to ment debt position unfairly bargaining superior garnishment suit merged into Jeanes’ a fact nor did Jeanes raise issue resulting Jones Fluor being releases unconscionable. indemnity judgment losing their Western, Towing H& Inc. v. G Offshore Although Hamby and Shav against Jones. (5th Cir.1971), Co., cert. 35, 447 F.2d 39 beliefs, in it wrong may have er been 959, denied, 922, 92 S.Ct. U.S. may be important they later ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‍(1972). any claim Accordingly, L.Ed.2d 793 American to be in error. General shown basis contract is without as to adhesion Mills, Valley v. Feed Insurance Co. Life in fact this record. (Tex.Civ.App. Paso 458 S.W.2d 860 — El Finally, I hold claim 1970, n.r.e.). would that Jeanes’ is wheth ref’d issue by res Loggins conspiracy to defraud is barred them. er were honest 1011, I Stewart, (Tex.Civ. judicata. hold would that res 218 S.W.2d any barred claims arising from by appellees. actions oc cussed It also raises fact curring February 22, 1977, (the before time issues to be determined the trier of fact. that Jeanes obtained appel- from I judg- would reverse remand the lees). Thus, I any need not reach of Je- ment of the trial court on the issue as to arguments regarding appellees’ other validity of the releases and render (statute affirmative defenses of limitations Hamby, in favor of estoppel by judgment). analyzing McSpedden on their affirmative defense of defense, affirmative it would judi be judicata. res cious to ask question: prosecu Is the рresent tion of the cause of action offen policy

sive to the underlying considerations judicata?

the doctrine of res In Gilbert v. Enterprises, Inc.,

Fireside 869, 611 S.W.2d writ), — Dallas

we stated those promotion considerations: judicial economy; prevention of vexa FIRST TEXAS SAVINGS litigation; prevention tious of double recov ASSOCIATION, ery; promotion stability of deci Appellant, majority sions. The admits that “Jeanes’ cause of action for conspiracy fraudulent PROPERTIES, arose from the same gave events which A STIFF original rise to his Partnership, Appеllee. Judgment note.” No. 13-83-548-CV. precludes first suit a second action Texas, Appeals Court of parties only “not on matters actually Corpus Christi. litigated, but also on causes action or which arise out the same sub defenses Nov. 1984. ject matter might and which have been Rehearing Second Denied Nov. litigated in the suit.” Texas Water first Rights Works, Commission v. Crow Iron (Tex.1979) 771-72 (empha added). Thus, sis conspir the fraudulent

acy claim should have been considered and

litigated prior suit. Jeanes had his

day in court. He now seeks another essentially

ment for damages. the same

To this suit stability allow would threaten Thus,

of decisions. I would hold that

claim as to fraudulent is barred judicata. agree

I post-judgment interest on original judgment grant- should not be My points disposes

ed. discussion of these cross-point, appellees

of the case. In their requested that we reverse the

judgment as their cause of action for if

breach of the releases we reverse the judgment granted

summary in their favor.

Because would reverse the releases, validity as to the dis- do not consider breach

Case Details

Case Name: Jeanes v. Hamby

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 30, 1984

Citation: 685 S.W.2d 695

Docket Number: 05-83-00452-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.