CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 02-20-00224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2021

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Regina Nachael Howell Foster used her property as collateral for her husband's mortgage refinance loan. After her husband defaulted, she sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to invalidate the deed-of-trust lien and stop foreclosure. Her initial suit was unsuccessful. Following a foreclosure sale, Foster initiated a second lawsuit, challenging the foreclosure procedures and reasserting the invalidity of the deed-of-trust lien. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Foster challenged this summary judgment, primarily arguing that she did not receive the required notice of default under the Texas Property Code and that the lien was invalid under the Texas Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Foster's contentions regarding lien invalidity were without merit and that she was not entitled to notice of default.

MortgageForeclosureDeed of TrustHomesteadSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas ConstitutionProperty CodeNotice of DefaultLien Invalidity
References
45
Case No. 04-14-00657-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

A party who seeks to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record that establishes its basis for vacating the award. Leshin has completely failed to carry his burden because he has come forth only with a partial record. Leshin has not brought forth a record showing that he was not brought into arbitration in a manner that would render him individually liable. For this reason alone, the trial court was correct in confirming the arbitrator’s award. In any case, the matters in the record clearly establish that the arbitrator was well within his power to determine that Leshin was individually liable for his wrongful acts. The AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, which apply to this matter, provide that the arbitrator had the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, 'including any objections with respect to the . . . scope . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.' Finally, the Texas Trust Code is clear that a trustee is always individually liable for his wrongful acts committed as trustee, so it was not necessary to sue Leshin in any particular capacity.

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust
References
26
Case No. 08-17-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2020

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

WTX Fund, LLC (Appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling on cross motions for summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a 1951 mineral deed. The core dispute was whether the original grantors conveyed their entire mineral interest or reserved their royalty interest. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the Holt heirs (Appellees), concluding that the deed conveyed all mineral interests, including the royalty. However, the appellate court determined that the 1951 deed expressly excluded the grantors' royalty right in its entirety from the conveyance. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, rendered partial judgment in favor of WTX, and remanded the case for a reconsideration of WTX’s remedy and attorney's fees.

Mineral Deed InterpretationRoyalty InterestNon-Participating RoyaltyExecutive RightsMineral Estate AttributesDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentReversed JudgmentRemand for RemedyAttorney Fees
References
34
Case No. 14-17-00431-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns a real estate dispute over a 3.4-acre tract in Houston. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Kenneth E. Ryals, Trustee of the East Texas Investments Trust, affirming the Trust's ownership of the property and invalidating a constable's deed acquired by appellant Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from Ray and Bonnie Edwards for lack of jurisdiction due to unresolved claims. For Izen's appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the Trust had superior title and Izen failed to present sufficient evidence to counter the summary judgment. The court also declined to review Izen's unpreserved issues regarding lis pendens and federal-court judgments.

Real Estate DisputeSummary JudgmentProperty TitleConstable's DeedTrespass to Try TitleQuiet Title ActionJudicial EstoppelQuasi-EstoppelAppellate JurisdictionAttorney's Fees
References
61
Case No. E2021-00378-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Terry Case defaulted on his mortgage, leading to a foreclosure sale by Wilmington Trust, N.A. Case sued for 'wrongful foreclosure,' alleging improper notice of a postponed sale. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a notice violation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review to determine if Tennessee recognizes a common law cause of action for 'wrongful foreclosure' and if the deed of trust required written notice of postponement. The Supreme Court held that Case has constitutional standing but ruled that no common law cause of action for 'wrongful foreclosure' exists in Tennessee. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case.

ForeclosureMortgage DefaultStanding DoctrineProperty RightsCommon Law Cause of ActionNotice RequirementsDeed of TrustAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentContract Law
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an appeal from a temporary injunction that restrained a trustee's sale of land. The injunction was sought by Fowler Brothers Sand & Gravel, its partners, and Second Land Corporation against Irving Bank & Trust Company, alleging that notes secured by deeds of trust on the property were usurious, thereby negating the right to foreclose. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to issue the temporary injunction, preserving the status quo until the merits of the usury claims could be fully litigated. The court declined to decide the usury questions on interlocutory appeal, finding that the appellees made a sufficient showing of probable right to recovery and probable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court also determined that a suit for usury penalties was not an adequate legal remedy given the potential loss of real estate and business interruption, which would not be adequately compensated by money damages.

Temporary InjunctionUsuryDeeds of TrustForeclosureProbable RightProbable InjuryAdequate Legal RemedyInterlocutory AppealStatus QuoSupersedeas Bond
References
13
Case No. No. 08-13-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2015

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Trust (Appellee) sued the Bank (Appellant), a financial institution, to quiet title to a house after a foreclosure sale. The Trust alleged title irregularities and sought to set aside the Bank's deed, leading to a no-answer default judgment against the Bank. On appeal, the Bank argued improper service of process. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that service did not strictly comply with Section 17.028 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates specific procedures for serving financial institutions. The court clarified that the term 'may' in the statute indicates a mandatory procedure to protect financial institutions from default judgments. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessFinancial InstitutionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRestricted AppealQuiet TitleForeclosureStatutory InterpretationSecretary of StateRegistered Agent
References
13
Case No. 08-18-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case concerns a dispute between two trustees, Anthony Bock and Richard C. Poe II, of the Troy S. Poe Trust, which was established for Troy Poe, a disabled beneficiary. The trust document required unanimous decisions from its trustees. Following the settlor Dick Poe's death, trustee Anthony Bock petitioned the probate court to modify the trust to include a third trustee and allow for majority decisions, citing irreconcilable differences and litigation between the two existing trustees. The probate court granted the modifications after a bench trial, finding changed circumstances made the trust's purposes impossible to fulfill. Richard C. Poe II, the other trustee, appealed this judgment, arguing that he was improperly denied a jury trial. The appellate court agreed that the fundamental questions regarding the necessity of trust modification due to changed circumstances or impossibility of fulfillment were factual issues that should have been decided by a jury. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the probate court's order and remanded the case for a new trial.

Trust ModificationTrustee DisputeJury TrialProbate CourtEquitable ReliefTexas Property CodeEstates CodeDue ProcessHarmless ErrorSpendthrift Trust
References
34
Case No. E2015-00941-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a trustee's signature on an investment/brokerage account agreement, containing a predispute arbitration provision, binds the trust beneficiary. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code grants trustees broad authority to enter such agreements, provided the trust instrument does not prohibit it. The Court found the Trust Instrument in this case authorized the Trustee to execute the client agreement, including the arbitration provision. However, it clarified that a nonsignatory third-party beneficiary is only bound to arbitration for claims that seek to enforce the contract. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and vacated the trial court's order compelling arbitration of all claims, remanding the case for a determination of which claims, if any, asserted by the trust beneficiary seek to enforce the Client Agreement.

Trust LawArbitration AgreementTrustee AuthorityBeneficiary RightsPredispute ArbitrationContract LawFiduciary DutyUniform Trust CodeFederal Arbitration ActInterlocutory Appeal
References
104
Case No. 07-13-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an appeal by South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. and Larry Dale Wisener (SPLR) against Kitten Family Living Trust (the Trust) in a property dispute. The appeal stems from a jury trial that favored the Trust, with SPLR raising issues including insufficient evidence, scope of rights, and the trial court's failure to submit affirmative defenses. Critically, SPLR also alleged that the Trust failed to disclose a 2009 survey showing wells and pipelines outside the agreed easement. The Court of Appeals found the issue of newly discovered evidence regarding the undisclosed survey to be dispositive, concluding that the Trust's failure to produce the survey demonstrated a lack of due diligence. This evidence, which could change the jury's verdict on the trespass claim, led the appellate court to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

Property disputeEasementTrespassNewly discovered evidenceDue diligenceDiscovery abuseJury trialAppellate reviewReversalRemand
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 936 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational