Maynard v. Caballero
752 S.W.2d 719
Tex. App.
1988
Check Treatment

*2 Maynard (Appellant case) V. in our was SCHULTE, Before FULLER and unhappy also with his and not WOODARD, JJ. only them sued sued but also Sutherland’s attorney, Appellee, Rаymond C. contending OPINION attorney Caballero tor- tiously attorney-client interfered FULLER, Justice. Maynard contract between and his attor- the tri- neys in the RICO trial. granted al summary judgment court The conduct that favor of the claimed interferer. We affirm complaining about of the trial court. his attorneys proper vinced that the strate- through Eight Points of Error Nos. One gy the RICO trial would be to limit assert the court granting Ap- erred in aof pellee Rаymond C. Caballero’s second mo- Maynard prosecu- ness. partial summary judgment. vigorously tion witness should impeached. Appellee, cross-examined and grew This tortious interference lawsuit conjunction with his unhappy out of the result of Federal proof, wrongful denied Appellant, May- criminal case. Edward Y. contending justified (privileged) he was nard, Glen Sutherland and Grace Walker doing doing what he did because was indicted, wеre tried convicted Feder- behalf Glen Sutherland. conspiracy al Court for to violate the Rack- testimony Appel- He also offered the Corrupt Organiza- eteer Influenced lant’s trial Bert attorney, Williams ‍​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‍who (RICO). tions Act Glen Sutherland was an stated: Municipal Judge and also Court El City represent- Maynard Paso and [M]y was interest was in ed in by Appellee, Raymond I anybody wasn’t worried else.... May- C. Caballero. V. Edward ... about what Mr. did ... or nard, police was a retired former officer in Mr. Caballero’s situation with Mr. City represent- everything for the El Paso and was And did in Sutherland.... case, upоn ed attorneys, Bert and Tim Williams. this I did what based thought [Maynard], employee Grace Walker was an of a bail was best for bonding time, company rеpresented prior and also was I did it at the trial and another after trial. alleged conspiracy Appellant RICO trial this of testi contеnds that Maynard mony support summary judg was that and Walker were by persons posi tacted testimony had received traffic ment. The direct and рaid Tex.R.Civ.P., Money 166a(c), tickets. and the traffic Rule requires tive as tickets, Sutherland, help Judge witness, with the of an interested but such or money opiniоn testimony subjective were “fixed” dismissed. The and shows paid by that had been the traffic offenders and cannot be controverted intent the rule. Lewisville split Judge required by between Blanton, Walker, Bank depending on who had made the 525 S.W.2d 696 1975). However, arrangements with the traffic offender. such detеrmination this case. Maynard, were con- critical to our decision in Walker Sutherland (1969), p. Before can be had for con sec. foоtnote 3. interference, it must be determined right exercise of an absolute privi ‍​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‍such interference was whether liability only if the ex- proteсts from leged justified. Interference with con equal or ercised is it re privileged tractual relations Enforcing complying invaded. party’s own from exercise of a sults own contract does not constitute valid *3 rights party possessed the another’s unjustifiable interference with of the equal interest to that protect An to one’s con- contract. action subject Black Lake in the matter. justification ordinarily is also tractual Pipe Construc Company Line v. Union interference another’s contract. 80, Inc., 91 Company, 538 S.W.2d Am.Jur.2d, Interference, (1969), sec. 23 45 (Tex.1976). 272 Terry Zaсhry, S.W.2d p. (Tex.Civ.App. Antonio writ — San n.r.e.). of ref’d We find that Caballero’s conduct (1979), Torts, lists in sec. 767 the factors privileged. long As as our statutes determining is im whether interference parties and permit joinder of in criminal the proper: vital litigation, is an ethical and there civil (a) conduct, of аctor's the nature the re need for on behalf (b) motive, the actor’s clients, meet, discuss, spective compro to (c) the interests thе other with which strategies. plan joint mise defenses or interferes, the actor’s conduct if that This be done without the fear should (d) sought advancеd the interests to be parties unsuc or all of the are one more actor, by the attorneys privity not in the cessful that (e) protecting the the social interests to litigants subject be with the other should freedom of the action of the actor and suit. with contract other, contractual interests of the should, instances, as In such (f) proximity the of the remoteness law, the long bar matter actor’s to the interference сonduct protect con is to one’s done represent own ‍​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‍client. to (g) parties. the relations between the his gave rise to In the RICO triаl that duty in Appellee’s the to his or defendant had her own each his no Glen Sutherland. He owed instances, privilege In such duty to by dissat- recovеry of a suit should bar Appellee’s tends that to restrict motive privity defendant not isfied cross-examination of the particu- If a attorneys. оther solely of this ness was not for the benefit client feels that lar Ap- client But this not for Sutherland. against should be represented, recourse pellant pass on. judgment else who attorney and not someone Canon 7 our Ethical Considerations duty. Oth- privity owes that, Lawyer “A Disciplinary requirе Rules erwise, loyal, public the interest of the Zealously Represent A Client Should ” by aggressive representation faithful The Within The Bounds Law. Of severеly ham- legal will profession be Court, Rules, Of art. Bar Texas Rules of all. detriment pered see. 9 Appellant’s suit that asserts interfer Whether an intentional four-year stat- two-year barred party with a contractual ence third as- such We find that of limitations. utes justifiable depends on a bal merit, may but have sertions importance, pri ancing of social and partial urged in second motion vate, objective by the inter of the аdvanced summary judgment, therefore against importance of the inter ference Tex.R.App.P. contentions. with, address these considering cir all the est interfered Interference, AmJur.2d, cumstances. affirm

We of the trial might prevailed defendant on this court. point. I ‍​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‍say it with humility, as was the judge improperly denied the first

WOODARD, Justice, dissenting. partial motion grounds. those scanty respectfully excuse offered dissent. cogitation easily oftеn comes more defendant, moving for summary tranquil appellate to the justice than it does judgment, must at least show one of ‍​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‍the harrowed, judge hurried and noble plaintiff’s elements of the cause of action the trial bench. conclusively against has been established Sakowitz, plaintiff. Steck, 669, Inc. v. (Tex.1984). The basic ele- for the cause of action for ments tortious

interference with a contract are: *4 maliciously

the defendant interfered with relationship,

the contractual and without

legal justification or excuse. attempted

The defendant negate

first element of Mr. Bert Williams that he was not influenced Mr. MONCIVAIZ, Jorge A. thе trial. Mr. Williams is testifying interested witness to matters of mind that cannot be controvert- Texas, Appellee. The STATE of proof disprove ed. This fails tо plaintiff’s allegation of interference causa- No. 13-87-243-CR. tion. legal justifi- This leaves consideration of Corpus Christi. majority cation or exсuse. The cites the of Torts for its bal- ancing guidelines. in order to avert atten-

tion suspect to the fact that he was in a scheme,

contemporaneous fixing in- ticket plaintiff’s attorney

terfered with the allegation

tract. A further was that Mr. prevented

of his former client/witness because

disclosure of their re- would

quire disqualification of himself from the

case and the surrender of a substantial

attorney’s fee.

In applying balancing the Restatement allegation, privilege,

test with the at this

point, must fail. If the defendant acted

maliciously,with self-interest as the induce-

ment, client, with no benefit to his

privilege perforated. ques- would be juncture at this is a fact

issue. humbly agree majority’s

jecture limitations that had the statute of properly urged in defendant’s second partial summary judgment,

motion for