 Gray's Interesting Cases - May 2000
 
|
1. In re: Markowitz, No. 14-98-00780-CV, not yet published (CA, Houston-14th). In a temp. order pending divorce H was ordered to make certain payments which he didn=t do. W filed contempt which was heard on July 7th. H was found in contempt & sentenced to 30 days. The T/C signed a commitment order that day & H was placed in jail. On July 13th H filed a H/C. On July 14th the T/C signed a contempt and commitment order. Unlike Ustick (see April issue), this T/C actually signed an order on July 7th ordering the Brazos County Sheriff to take H into custody & jail him so the H/C should be denied. Right? Not quite. To have a valid contempt commitment, there must be 2 things done - (2) an order holding H in contempt with specific findings as to what he did wrong and (2) a commitment order which satisfies Ustick. Here there was no contempt order, only the July 7th commitment order. What about the July 14th contempt & commitment order? Nice try but no cigar. Ex parte Burnett (600/252) says an order of contempt and commitment must be signed within a short and reasonable time after H is taken into custody - 3 days is too long. Here there was a 7 day old order. H goes free. Comment - Contempts and the things necessary to have valid orders are so easy and the law is so clear so why do our T/Cs continually screw up? Fill in your own answer here ____________.
2. Stephenson v. LeBoeuf, No. 14-98-00723-CV, not yet published (CA, Houston - 14th). S represented L in a divorce which settled with L receiving a $38,000 note secured by a d of t on a house. S was the trustee on the d of t. S sent L a bill which she didn=t pay so S sued her and obtained a $7,500 judgment which he abstracted. Apparently L foreclosed her d of t on the house (using a substitute trustee) and then sold it to a 3rd party. S refused to release his judgment lien until he was paid so L sued him alleging, among other things, that S breached his fiduciary duty to her as her: (1) atty and (2) trustee under the d of t securing the note payable to her. The jury agreed with L and awarded her a substantial judgment against S who appealed. CA reversed holding that: (1) S's fiduciary duty to L ended upon the granting of the divorce, i.e. the end of the atty/client relationship; (2) S as of d of t trustee did not owe a fiduciary duty to L except to carry out the terms of the d of t. Comment - Just another example of an atty trying to collect his fees by legal means only to be hindered by another atty dreaming up a cockamamie theory to defeat a just claim. Unfortunately the jury ruled against the atty but the CA righted the wrong.
|
|