Hensley v. Salinas
| Decision Date | 27 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8372,B-8372 |
| Citation | 583 S.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | Azucena F. HENSLEY et al., Petitioners, v. Salvador SALINAS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Pena, McDonald, Prestia & Zipp, Ronald D. Zipp, Edinburg, for petitioners.
Kelley, Looney & Alexander, Mitchell O. Sawyer, Edinburg, Emilio F. Gutierrez, Laredo, Pope & Pope, John A. Pope, Frank R. Nye, Jr., Rio Grande City, Ewers, Toothaker Ewers, Abbott, Talbot, Hamilton & Jarvis, O. C. Hamilton, Jr. and Ricardo Hinojosa, McAllen, for respondents.
This lawsuit originated as a trespass-to-try title suit to a certain 1452.6-acre tract located in Starr County. An agreed judgment was entered in the trial court which purports to represent a compromise between all of the plaintiffs of record and eight of the defendants of record. A default judgment was entered against the other eleven defendants. The agreed judgment which was entered on March 8, 1978, recites that all of the plaintiffs appeared "by and through their attorney of record" and that all approved of the settlement "as to form and substance." The agreed judgment was signed by the attorneys of record.
Azucena Hensley was one of these plaintiffs in the trial court. As soon as she heard about the agreed judgment, she wrote and informed the trial court that she was not previously informed of the terms of the judgment, and "completely rejected" the settlement. Hensley also by this letter, filed March 15, 1978, formally requested a new trial.
On March 27, 1978, Hensley, now assisted by new legal counsel, filed an Amended Motion for New Trial. Accompanying this motion was a letter requesting a hearing "as soon as possible." Also attached to this motion was an affidavit by Hensley in which she stated under oath that she was not consulted prior to the entry of the agreed judgment, and that its terms were completely unacceptable to her.
The trial court set the matter for a hearing on at least two different occasions. On each occasion, Mrs. Hensley made the trip from her home in Cameron, Milam County, Texas, to Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas, a distance of over three hundred and fifty miles, only to find that for some reason the hearing had been postponed.
On April 18, 1978, and then again on April 28, 1978, Hensley, by letter confirming earlier phone calls, requested the trial court to make a definite setting. On May 12, 1978, Hensley's Motion for New Trial was overruled by operation of law before a hearing was held. The trial court severed this action, and Hensley perfected her appeal.
The Court of Civil Appeals sitting in Waco affirmed the agreed judgment of the trial court. 577 S.W.2d 383. While recognizing the general rule that a final judgment cannot be rendered on a settlement agreement if the consent of one of the parties is lacking, the Court of Civil Appeals held that Hensley had no evidence in the record to support her claim that she did not consent. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for a hearing upon Hensley's Motion for New Trial.
It is not disputed that a final judgment based upon a settlement agreement can only be rendered if all parties consent....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co.
..."outside influence" in its new trial motion or on appeal. Rather, Texaco relies upon the 1979 Texas Supreme Court case of Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.1979), in which the court held that it was error for the trial court to deny a hearing where questions of fact were alleged in a ......
-
S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal
...would entitle the movant to a new trial and when a hearing for such purpose is properly requested. 807, 809 (Tex.1983); Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1979). In Hensley, the supreme court Id. at 618. Besides establishing that the trial court is "obligated" to hear the new evid......
-
Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey
...upon which evidence must be developed and heard, the cause must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1979). Should the Estate continue to refuse to comply with proper discovery requests, the trial court may, after notice and he......
-
Jurgens v. Martin
...by a party and when the motion for new trial presents a question of fact upon which evidence must be heard. Hensley v. Salinas , 583 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. 1979) (per curiam). In the absence of a request for a hearing on Jurgens's motion for new trial, the trial court did not err in not hold......