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. 04-14-00657-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Richard Leshin, Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trust, Trust A v. Juan Gerardo Oliva, Rosina Oliva, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe Davila

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. 02-20-00224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2021

Regina Nachael Howell Foster v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. Trust 2005-HE1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-HE 1

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. 08-18-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

in the Matter of Troy S. Poe Trust

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

Wade Harvey, Ex Rel. Alexis Breanna Gladden v. Cumberland Trust And Investment Company

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

South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. and Larry Dale Wisener v. Kitten Family Living Trust

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
Case No. 07-09-0343-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2011

South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd., and Larry Dale Wisener v. the Kitten Family Living Trust

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract dispute over water well operations on property owned by South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. (SPLR). The Kitten Family Living Trust (the Trust) had entered into both a Lease Agreement and a subsequent Easement Agreement with SPLR for drilling water wells. A dispute arose regarding the number of wells the Trust was permitted to operate and the duration of its rights, leading to the Trust suing SPLR for interference. The trial court ruled in favor of the Trust, granting a perpetual easement and attorneys' fees. On appeal, SPLR argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, specifically claiming that a broad-form question was defective for failing to incorporate legal theories and their elements. The appellate court agreed, finding the instruction improper and confusing, and also noted errors in not submitting instructions on an alleged oral agreement and conversion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial due to these instructional errors.

Contract DisputeLease AgreementEasement AgreementWater RightsJury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureReversal and RemandOral ContractConversion ClaimStatute of Frauds
References
36
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24324 [86 Misc 3d 365]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2024

Matter of Kosmo Family Trust

This case concerns the Kosmo Family Trust, where petitioners, including decedent Janet D. Kosmo's children and grandchildren, challenged the validity of trust amendments on grounds of undue influence by respondent Donna Savino. The court found that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and respondent, characterized by the decedent's vulnerability and respondent's active involvement in the trust's modifications. The respondent, initially a healthcare worker for decedent's disabled daughter, became the primary beneficiary, receiving almost the entire estate. Ultimately, the Surrogate's Court, Albany County, voided the second and third amendments, reinstating the first amendment's beneficiaries.

Trust ValidityUndue InfluenceConfidential RelationshipEstate DisputeTestamentary CapacitySurrogate's CourtCalifornia Probate LawNew York Evidence LawDead Man's StatuteHearsay
References
82
Case No. 900983-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

Plaintiff Building Exterior Services Trust of New York (BEST), a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action against former members, including A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for unpaid monetary assessments levied in 2013 and 2014 to address a shortfall. Defendant A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint and a cross-claim, arguing that it ceased membership in 1994, was not bound by the 2000 Trust Documents, and that assessments could only be levied against current members, with any authority expiring in 2003. The Supreme Court, Albany County, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Trust Documents, specifically Section 4.8 of the Indemnity Agreement and Section 10.4 of the Declaration of Trust, could authorize assessments against former members for periods of participation. The court also rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that the breach-of-contract claim accrued when the defendant refused to pay the assessments.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insurance TrustUnpaid AssessmentsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeclaration of TrustIndemnity AgreementFormer MembersTrust Solvency
References
17
Case No. 01-09-00081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2010

Kenneth R. Lyle and Warbonnet Exploration Company v. Jane Guinn Revocable Trust, Perry B. Menking, Jr. Investment Management Trust, Lynn Sahin, Kate Lutken Bruno Grantor Trust, Wesley Lutken Grantor Trust, Daniel R. Japhet, Jr., Gretchen Japhet, Susan Japhet Scotty and Larken Japhet Sutherland

This case involves the interpretation of the 1919 Hogg-Japhet Lease assignment of oil and gas rights. Appellants Kenneth R. Lyle and Warbonnet Exploration Company appealed the trial court's partial summary judgment in favor of the Japhet heirs, who claimed a one-fourth net profit royalty interest. Lyle argued the interest was a production payment already discharged or that no interest was reserved, and that the claims were barred by statutes of limitations and laches. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the 1919 Assignment unambiguously reserved a perpetual royalty interest to Dan A. Japhet, and Lyle, as a successor, was bound by its covenants. The court also rejected Lyle's affirmative defenses.

Oil and Gas LeaseRoyalty InterestNet Profit InterestAssignmentSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLachesStatute of FraudsProperty LawReal Property
References
23
Case No. 04-13-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, U/w, F/B/O William David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/w, F/B/O Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/W/, F/B/O Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum Management Company N/K/A Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc., Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford, Rut

This case, heard by the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, addresses a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement (JOA) in McMullen County. Appellants, led by Bank of America as trustee, contested a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, concerning the alleged fraudulent inducement of a ratification agreement. The core issues involved the Bank's claims of waiver, ratification, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession, all stemming from the belief that the Baker Lease terminated due to a cessation of production. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of fraud and its intent to waive its claims, as well as the applicability of quasi-estoppel and adverse possession. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Oil and gas leaseJoint operating agreementMineral interestsLease terminationFraudulent inducementRatificationWaiverQuasi-estoppelAdverse possessionSummary judgment
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 890 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