3/23/2023 0 Comments Ed weiner moneyclip![]() Originating from: 7th District Court of Appeals, Amarillo The court of appeals affirmed a breach-of-contract verdict, admitting evidence that showed the father's intent to create the joint account, and affirmed attorneys fees that were not segregated because the court held the fees were inextricably intertwined.ĪARON FELTON V. In this case Beyer sought as damages the money from the account split among her siblings to settle the interpleader action in federal court. When Beyer initially sued for negligence, the company submitted the proceeds to federal court to determine ownership. Edwards told her the agreement was missing, then froze the $1.19 million account after he died. Four days before her father lapsed into a coma, A.G. Edwards & Sons for conversion and breach of contract, among other claims, after the company allegedly lost an agreement that would have made Beyer joint owner of her father's investment account and sole owner when he died. In this case alleging a financial institution lost documentation creating a survivorship right in a joint account, the principal issues are (1) whether Texas Probate Code section 439(a) bars extrinsic evidence of intent in a contract-breach claim over creation of the joint-tenancy account and (2) whether the "intertwining" exception to the duty to segregate attorney's fees should include fees recovery in a related federal court proceeding. Originating from: 13th District Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi & Edinburg The trial court granted summary judgment to 20801 Inc., but the court of appeals reversed on the safe harbor provision.ĤFRONT ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS INC. ![]() Parker claimed the drinks were a proximate cause of the head injuries he suffered in the fight. Parker sued 20801, the owner of Slick Willie's, alleging that its employees provided him perhaps 15 free drinks at the bar's grand opening before he was assaulted in the parking lot by another bar patron. The principal issue is whether the appeals court erred by holding that a bar and pool hall owner failed to establish a "safe harbor" under Texas' statutory dram shop law by proving that it did not encourage employees to serve alcohol to an intoxicated customer. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether 'safe harbor' element was shown in dram shop action.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |