National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hood
Decision Date | 02 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. C14-85-024CV,C14-85-024CV |
Citation | 693 S.W.2d 638 |
Parties | NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Chessie V. HOOD, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Calvin C. Otte, Dallas, for appellant.
James H. Pearson, DeLange, Hudspeth, Pitman & Katz, Houston, for appellee.
Before JUNELL, ROBERTSON and CANNON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of appellee, Chessie V. Hood, declaring funds held in escrow by a title company exempt from a lien held by the appellant, National County Mutual Fire Insurance Company. We reverse and remand because the summary judgment proof offered by appellee was lacking.
Appellee brought the action for declaratory judgment alleging the following: (1) Appellant, acting under the name of Eugene Van Stroman, obtained a $2,278.47 judgment in Dallas County on February 15, 1977, against appellee's former husband, Charlie Hood. (2) In February 1979 Chessie Hood was granted a divorce from Charlie Hood and was awarded the family residence in Houston, Texas, as her separate property. (The suit for declaratory judgment was filed in the same court that heard the divorce and given a file number indicating the second action was ancillary to the divorce suit.) (3) After the divorce appellee sold her residence. (4) The closing agent, Stewart Title Company, held in escrow approximately $4000.00 to cover payment of liens securing obligations owing by Chessie Hood. (5) On November 17, 1983, an attorney for appellee made application in Dallas County and was granted a writ of garnishment against Stewart Title Company for any effects the title company held for the benefit of Charlie Hood.
The petition further alleges that the property in question was the homestead of Charlie and Chessie Hood before the divorce and the homestead of Chessie Hood after the divorce. The petition prays for a judgment declaring the funds exempt as proceeds from the sale of a homestead and for attorney's fees under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2524-1, § 10 (Vernon 1965 & Supp.1985).
The motion for summary judgment made essentially the same allegations. Filed with the motion is an affidavit by Mrs. Hood adequately establishing the homestead character of the real property before and after the divorce and up to the time of the sale. There is also an affidavit by a representative of Stewart Title Company adequately establishing that the company withheld $3,500.00 from the sale proceeds and holds said funds in an interest-bearing escrow account then amounting to $4,119.69.
Appellee states in her brief that at a hearing prior to the hearing on her motion for summary judgment the trial court took judicial notice of the court records concerning the divorce, the suit against Charlie Hood, and the garnishment proceedings in Dallas County. Copies of those records appear in a supplemental transcript as Exhibits "A," "B," "C," "D," "E," "F," and "G." A typewritten notation at the top of Exhibit "A" is simply "FILED: AMONG THE PAPERS."
Under the common law a trial court could take judicial notice of records of its own court in a case concerning the same subject matter and between the same or practically the same parties. Gardner v. Martin, 162 Tex. 156, 345 S.W.2d 274 (1961). A court may not judicially notice records of another court. Culver v. Pickens, 142 Tex. 87, 176 S.W.2d 167, 171 (1944), Chandler v. Carnes Co., 604 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Winslar v. Bartlett, 573 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1978, no writ), Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Taub, 345 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1961, no writ). Rule 201 of the Texas Rules of Evidence does not specifically state whether court records can be judicially noticed. We do not see that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S. Cty. Mutual Ins. Co. v Ochoa
...(Tex. 1944); Bhalli v. Methodist Hosp., 896 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hood, 693 S.W.2d 638, 639 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ); see also Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Comm'n......
-
Krishnan v. Ramirez
...entitled to opportunity to be heard as to propriety of taking judicial notice and tenor of matter noticed); National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hood, 693 S.W.2d 638, 639 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ). We conclude, therefore, the trial court properly took judicial notice ......
-
Turner v. State
...365 N.Y.S.2d 454, affirmed (Appellate Div.), 383 N.Y.2d 653. Only recently in a civil case, National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Hood, 693 S.W.2d 638 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (no writ hist.), the Court wrote: "Under the common law a trial court could take judicial notice......
-
Rodarte v. Investeco Group, L.L.C.
...action regarding escrow funds from a foreclosure sale does not qualify as a justiciable controversy in National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hood, 693 S.W.2d 638 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no pet.). But our decision in that case was based on the appellee's failure to include in th......