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. 13-17-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

American Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Co-Trustee of the John Buckley Jr. Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust, Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, Together With John Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Kinard, as Trustee, Co-Trustee and/or Trust Beneficiaries of the John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, and/or Shareholders v. Moorehead Oil & Gas, Inc., Moorehead Acquisition, LLC, and Moorehead Oil & Gas, LLC

This is an appeal regarding a summary judgment in a proceeding to determine the fair value of ownership interests in corporate stock under the Texas Business Organizations Code. Appellants, consisting of American Bank, N.A. as trustee, and the Buckley family members (John J. Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Rose Kinard) as co-trustees and/or beneficiaries of their trusts, challenged the denial of their petition for stock valuation against Moorehead Oil & Gas entities. The key arguments on appeal were whether the Bank was the sole entity capable of requesting a valuation and if the limitations period was tolled due to the misnomer doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Lisa Marie Buckley's claim as a beneficiary due to lack of standing, but reversed the remainder of the judgment, ruling that the first amended petition related back to the timely-filed original petition for limitations purposes and that American Bank, John J. Buckley Jr., and Kelly Rose Kinard had standing as trustees or co-trustees. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentCorporate Stock ValuationDissenting Shareholder RightsTexas Business Organizations CodeTrusts and TrusteesBeneficiary StandingLimitations PeriodMisnomer DoctrineAppellate ProcedureFair Value Appraisal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Morales v. Morales

In a divorce action, the husband appealed portions of a judgment concerning child support, private parochial school tuition, division of a savings/security plan, pension plan, and the valuation of the wife’s practical nurse license. The appellate court modified the judgment regarding the private school tuition, directing the husband to pay 68% instead of the full amount. Crucially, the court also modified the valuation of the wife’s nursing license, rejecting the wife's expert's flawed methodology and adopting the husband's expert's valuation of $98,000 in enhanced earning capacity, crediting the husband with a $9,800 share. The court found the wife's expert's valuation speculative and not founded in economic reality. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyEnhanced Earning CapacityProfessional License ValuationChild SupportPrivate School TuitionAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyValuation MethodologyDivorce Law
References
7
Case No. M2012-02242-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Tonya Andrews, As Admin. for the Estate of James Christopher Sprinkle & Jacob Colton Sprinkle a minor by next friend and Guardian Tonya Andrews v. Amy Sprinkle and Frank Wray

This appeal concerns the valuation of a decedent's plumbing business, Rooter Drain and Plumbing, at the time of his death. The decedent's mother, as administratrix of the estate, sued the decedent's wife and her brother for wrongfully converting business assets and goodwill. The trial court found the defendants liable and awarded $75,000 in damages, comprising $25,000 for tangible assets and $50,000 for goodwill. On appeal, the defendants challenged the valuation and argued that goodwill should not be considered a separate property interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the valuation was supported by evidence and that goodwill is a transferable property interest in this context.

Estate AdministrationBusiness ValuationConversion of AssetsGoodwill ValuationAppellate ReviewDamages AwardProperty RightsIntestate SuccessionCredibility AssessmentBench Trial
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz v. Feinberg

This case involves a dispute between former business partners, Norman Katz (petitioner) and Herbert Feinberg (respondent), arising from the sale of Katz's interest in their company, I. Appel Corporation, to Feinberg. An arbitration panel initially denied most claims but found that the purchase price valuation was improperly calculated. Katz petitioned the District Court to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety, while Feinberg cross-moved to partially vacate and modify the award, arguing the arbitrators exceeded their authority by re-fashioning the valuation determined by independent accountants (Mahoney, Cohen). The Court granted Feinberg's motion, vacating the portion of the award that adjusted the purchase price valuation, concluding that the original agreement made the accountants' determination final and immune from arbitral review. The remaining aspects of the arbitration award, including the direction for interest payments on the adjusted principal, were confirmed.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardContract InterpretationPurchase AgreementBusiness Partnership DisputeAccountant ValuationFinality ClauseArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2016

Davis v. International Bank of Commerce (In re Diamond Beach VP, LP)

This case is an appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judgment concerning the valuation of an unfinished condominium complex, Diamond Beach, in Galveston, Texas. Appellant Randall Davis, the principal owner and guarantor of the debt, disputes the valuation, arguing it was too low, thus increasing his deficiency judgment owed to Appellee International Bank of Commerce (IBC). The project, consisting of Phase I (completed units and common amenities) and Phase II (undeveloped land with a right to use Phase I amenities), went bankrupt after Hurricane Ike and sales difficulties. The Bankruptcy Court valued Phase II and the unsold Phase I units at approximately $21.5 million, leading to a deficiency judgment of about $6 million for Davis. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, finding its modified income approach to valuation, which rejected the cost approach due to market conditions and the non-fee simple interest in common elements, was supported by the record and legal precedent.

Condominium ValuationBankruptcy AppealDeficiency JudgmentReal Estate DevelopmentAppraisal MethodologyCost ApproachIncome ApproachProperty ValuationGalveston Real EstateChapter 11 Bankruptcy
References
55
Case No. E1999-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2000

F. G.Sutton v. J.W. Sutton

This divorce case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses the equitable division of marital property, specifically challenging the valuation of the marital home and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's discretion in deducting a hypothetical real estate commission for property valuation, as the husband had initially sought a sale. However, the court found insufficient proof regarding the specific amount of the commission and the parties' ability to pay attorney's fees. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings to establish these details consistent with the opinion.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionReal Estate CommissionAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewValuationRemandTennessee LawMarital Home
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mesholam v. Mesholam

The plaintiff husband appeals a Supreme Court judgment in a divorce case concerning equitable distribution of his pension, pendente lite arrears, mortgage payments, the wife's social worker license valuation, and counsel fees. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that the husband should be credited for principal mortgage payments made between April 2000 and August 2001. It also found the counsel fee award to the wife was an improvident exercise of discretion, directing its deletion. The matter was remitted for recalculation of the mortgage credit and reconsideration of the husband's pension valuation date, setting it to the commencement of a prior discontinued divorce action in September 1994.

DivorceEquitable DistributionPension ValuationPendente Lite ArrearsMortgage PaymentsMarital ResidenceCounsel FeesSpousal SupportAppellate ReviewDiscretion Abuse
References
17
Case No. E2019-01136-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2020

Eric Wayne Barton v. Mechelle Schlomer Barton

This case is an appeal from a divorce judgment concerning the classification, valuation, and division of the marital estate, as well as an award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee vacated portions of the judgment that awarded a lien on real property belonging to LLCs 100% owned by the Husband and an interest to the Wife in a contingent contractual claim against the United States Government, which was an asset of an LLC. The appellate court concluded that the trial court overvalued the net marital business interests and remanded the case for reconsideration of the valuation of the parties' business interests, the equitable division of the estate, and the award of attorney's fees. The balance of the judgment was affirmed, and the Wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal was denied.

DivorceMarital EstateProperty DivisionAlimonyAttorney FeesLLC AssetsCorporate VeilContractual ClaimValuationRemand
References
39
Case No. 03-05-00018-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2009

Burnet Central Appraisal District v. Louis G. Millmeyer and Sharon Millmeyer

This ad valorem tax case involves the Burnet Central Appraisal District appealing a district court judgment that reduced the appraised value of property belonging to Louis G. and Sharon Millmeyer and awarded them attorneys’ fees. The Appraisal District challenged the attorneys' fee award, the district court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the property's lowered valuation. The appellate court modified the judgment to reduce the attorneys’ fees, agreeing that the award exceeded statutory limits. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the property valuation and found no reversible harm from the lack of findings of fact.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationAttorneys' FeesStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeSufficiency of EvidenceFindings of FactConclusions of LawAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
21
Case No. M1999-00714-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2000

Fillmore v. Fillmore

This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant Stephen Douglas Fillmore and Appellee Karen Leigh Fillmore regarding the terms of their divorce. Mr. Fillmore argued that the trial court erred in its valuation of certain marital property, improperly awarded alimony in solido, and failed to include a pre-marital debt as marital debt. Additionally, he contended that his child support obligation was improperly calculated based on his current income. The Court of Appeals for Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the ruling of the trial court on all issues. The court upheld the valuation of Fillmore Construction, Inc., the alimony award for student loans, the classification of the pre-marital debt as separate, and the child support determination.

DivorceMarital PropertyAlimony in SolidoChild SupportSeparate DebtBusiness ValuationEarning CapacitySpousal SupportMarital AssetsPre-marital Debt
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 77 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