Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of April 04, 2014

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Giovanni Homes Corp., No. 02-11-00237-CV (Apr. 3, 2014) (McCoy, J., joined by Walker and Gabriel, JJ).

Held: Breach-of-contract claim against electric utility required exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Public Utility Regulatory Act.

Cade v. Cosgrove, No.02-11-00424-CV(Apr. 3, 2014) (Dauphinot, J.; Walker and Gabriel, JJ., concur without opinion).

Held: Appellants sued Appellee seeking reformation of a deed that failed to include a reservation of mineral rights that the parties had agreed to in the sales contract. Appellee’s motion for summary judgment asserted that the doctrine of merger and the statute of limitation barred the claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellee. Because we hold that the doctrine of merger does not bar the reformation claim, that the limitation period does not begin to run against a grantor on a claim for deed reformation based on mutual mistake until the grantor knows or with reasonable diligence should have known of the mistake, and that there is a question of fact regarding when the Cades knew or should have known of the mistake in the deed, we reverse.

Wilder v. Campbell, No.02-13-00146-CV (Apr. 3, 2014) (Gabriel, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Gardner, J., dissents with opinion).

Held: Under section 65.023(b) of the civil practice and remedies code, trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin district clerk’s attempts to collect costs awarded by family district courts in final divorce decrees against indigent parties. Jurisdiction to enjoin such processes lay with the respective family district courts that entered the final divorce decrees at issue.

Dissent: Section 65.023(b) did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Appellees have standing to maintain an action to enjoin the district clerk’s attempts to collect costs awarded by family district courts in final divorce decrees against indigent parties on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated and lack an adequate remedy at law. Thus, the temporary injunction should be affirmed.