Lamar Sav. Ass'n v. White, 01-87-0259-CV
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Writing for the Court | DUGGAN |
Citation | 731 S.W.2d 715 |
Parties | LAMAR SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Relator, v. The Hon. Frank O. WHITE, Judge of the 295th District Court of Harris County, Respondent. (1st Dist.) |
Docket Number | No. 01-87-0259-CV,01-87-0259-CV |
Decision Date | 21 May 1987 |
Page 715
v.
The Hon. Frank O. WHITE, Judge of the 295th District Court
of Harris County, Respondent.
Houston (1st Dist.).
J. Graham Hill, Houston, for relator.
Daniel Kistler, Robert L. Collins, Robert L. Collins & Associates, Houston, for respondent.
Before DUGGAN, JACK SMITH and HOYT, JJ.
DUGGAN, Justice.
This case arises from a suit filed in the 295th District Court of Harris County by Meyerland Company and Mike Adkinson (hereafter "Meyerland") against Lamar Savings Association and related parties (hereafter "Lamar"). Relator, Lamar, seeks writs to prohibit respondent, 295th District Court Judge Frank O. White, from entering further orders in the case, to compel respondent to withdraw orders he has already issued, and to compel respondent to grant a plea in abatement. The writs of prohibition and mandamus are conditionally granted.
The underlying facts of this case are lengthy and complex. Except as set out below, a recitation of most of the facts is unnecessary to the disposition of these proceedings.
On July 22, 1986, Lamar filed suit against Meyerland in the 345th District Court of Travis County. The suit claimed that Meyerland had defaulted on a promissory note payable to Lamar in the principal
Page 716
amount of $58 million on January 9, 1986. On July 21, 1986, Lamar filed suit against CDR Investments, Inc. (hereafter "CDR") in the 126th District Court of Travis County, and on July 29, 1986, Lamar filed suit against Brown Col Investments, Inc. (hereafter "BCI") in the 250th District Court of Travis County. The suits claimed that CDR & BCI were in default on promissory notes payable to Lamar. Meyerland was not a party to the CDR and BCI suits, and it was stipulated that Meyerland does not own or control CDR or BCI. The properties securing the Meyerland, CDR, and BCI notes were posted for an August non-judicial foreclosure by Lamar.On August 4, 1986, Meyerland filed suit against Lamar in the 295th District Court of Harris County, alleging breach of contract, breach of confidential fiduciary duties, estoppel, usury, duress, and tortious interference. Meyerland pleaded for a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction with respect to the foreclosure sales, and for money damages with respect to the allegations of tortious interference and usury. The petition factually alleged: (1) that Lamar agreed to extend the note to April 5, 1986, and that in reliance on that agreement, Meyerland paid Lamar $192,837.25 on March 31, 1986; (2) that Lamar agreed to extend the note for one year thereafter, and breached that agreement by wrongfully accelerating, by demanding full payment, and by giving notice of its intention to foreclose; 1 (3) that when the note was originally executed, there existed a confidential relationship between Meyerland and Lamar, which caused Lamar to assure Meyerland that Lamar would continue to refinance the principal and interest of the note on an annual basis, despite contrary language in the written agreement; 2 and (4) that Lamar made unconscionable demands on Meyerland, "seeking to divest itself of properties which LAMAR had taken by foreclosure, and also to require [Meyerland] to make payments on loans which were not obligations of [Meyerland]," as a condition of extending the note.
On August 8, 1986, Lamar filed a plea in abatement seeking to abate or dismiss the Harris County action on the ground that the Travis County courts had already acquired dominant jurisdiction over the parties and controversy by virtue of the previously filed suits. Respondent denied Lamar's plea in abatement.
On January 26, 1987, respondent signed a temporary injunction prohibiting Lamar: (1) from taking any steps to foreclose on the Meyerland, RDL Development, Inc. (hereafter "RDL"), BCI, and CDR properties; (2) from further declaring any default or acceleration on the indebtedness secured by those properties; and (3) from bringing or maintaining any action against Meyerland in any other court on any of the indebtedness secured by those properties.
The court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties of the suit, to the exclusion of other coordinate courts, Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974); Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1, 285 S.W. 1063 (1926), and no other court in which a subsequent suit is filed has the power to interfere. Johnson v. Avery, 414 S.W.2d 441 (Tex.1966).
In V.D. Anderson Co. v. Young,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Starnes v. Holloway, 05-88-00706-CV
...was filed. See Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 246 (Tex.1988); Cleveland, 285 S.W. at 1066-67; Lamar Sav. Ass'n v. White, 731 S.W.2d 715, 715-16 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ); Houston North Properties v. White, 731 S.W.2d 719, 721-22 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.......
-
Landry v. Cross Country Bank, CIV.A.G-03-456.
...See Williams v. National Mortgage Company, 903 S.W.2d 398, 403 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied); Lamar Savings Ass'n v. White, 731 S.W.2d 715, 717-18 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). Although filing a permissive counterclaim may waive defendant's right to removal, it is clea......
-
Williams v. National Mortg. Co., 05-94-00685-CV
...of the Deceptive Trade Practices--Consumer Protection Act are compulsory counterclaims to a suit on a note); Lamar Sav. Ass'n v. White, 731 S.W.2d 715, 717-18 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, orig. proceeding) (causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, usury, du......
-
In re Plainscapital Bank, NUMBER 13-17-00021-CV
...under a note. Williams v. Nat'l Mortg. Co., 903 S.W.2d 398, 403 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, writ denied); see also Lamar Sav. Ass'n v. White, 731 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (stating that a borrower's alleged causes of action for breach of contract and tortious......