Westbrook Const. Co., Inc. v. Fidelity Nat. Bank of Dallas

Decision Date30 July 1991
Docket NumberNo. 02-89-162-CV,02-89-162-CV
Citation813 S.W.2d 752
PartiesWESTBROOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; Tel-Power Construction Company; Vermeer Equipment of Texas, Inc.; Billy Teel; Tesmec, USA, Inc.; Walker Road Boring, Inc.; Cable Specialists, Inc.; and West Texas Equipment Company, Inc., Appellants, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS, as Assignee of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver For First State Bank of Texas, Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

William Murphy, Murphy, Shrull, Moore & Bell, Fort Worth, Kenneth G. Leggett, Glandon, Erwin, Scarborough, Baker & Gravley, Abilene, for appellants.

Kelly Duggan, Thomas G. Van Amburgh, Hunter, Van Amburgh & Wolf, Dallas, for appellees.

Before WEAVER, C.J., and FARRIS and DAY, JJ.

OPINION

WEAVER, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. The case involved a dispute of various claimants to funds which were interplead and paid into the registry of the court by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell). The funds represented the balance owing by Bell under a construction contract (the Bell Contract), which it entered into on July 10, 1987, with Vernon Nelson, d/b/a Red Baron Ditchin, the general contractor.

The trial court found that the appellee, Fidelity National Bank of Dallas (Fidelity), had a prior and superior security interest, lien and claim to such funds, and granted summary judgment to Fidelity for the amount of its claim. Fidelity was also granted a judgment of foreclosure of its security interest and lien in the Bell Contract, and in all proceeds therefrom, including the funds interplead into the registry of the court, to the extent of its claim of indebtedness. The judgment ordered the district clerk to pay these sums to Fidelity from the registry of the court. We reverse and remand.

Fidelity's claim to the proceeds arises from its position as the holder of a note given by Red Baron Ditchin, the general contractor, on March 25, 1987, which note was secured by a security interest in the accounts receivable of Red Baron Ditchin, including all accounts, contract rights and rights to payment of every kind "now or at any time hereafter arising out of the business of the debtor; ..."

Appellants' 1 claim that they completed the Bell Contract after Red Baron Ditchin had defaulted thereunder, and that they had a superior right to the interplead funds due to their status as subcontractors or materialmen. They also assert a claim to these funds as beneficiaries of a Trust Fund under section 162.003 of the Texas Property Code. This latter claim was not raised until the plaintiffs filed their first amended original petition on May 24, 1989, which was seven days before the motion for summary judgment was heard on May 31, 1989.

Appellants bring one point of error, claiming simply that the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. Under six subpoints they complain (1 & 3) that Fidelity failed to prove its claims were superior to those of the appellants; (2 & 4) that whether appellants are beneficiaries of a trust fund or whether they are subcontractors or materialmen are genuine issues of fact; (5) that Fidelity offered no summary judgment evidence that appellants' claims were invalid; and (6) that Fidelity failed to prove that it received an assignment of, and was thus the holder of, the note under which it claimed.

Fidelity's summary judgment evidence was limited to proof of the claim which it held under the note and security agreement, and it submitted no evidence respecting the claims of appellants. Appellants filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, but likewise introduced no evidence respecting their claims. Accordingly, the record contains no evidence respecting the existence, validity or propriety of appellants' claims.

Under subpoints one through five, appellants argue, in effect, that because there was no evidence as to their claims, there was no basis on which the trial court could have determined the priority of the various claims. They argue that Fidelity, in addition to proving its own claim, had the burden to prove either that its claim was superior to appellants' claims or that appellants' claims were invalid.

On the other hand, Fidelity claims that the summary judgment was proper because it proved a prima facie case of its claim and that such proof shifted the burden of proof to appellants to present a defense or to establish that appellants' claims were superior.

Ordinarily, in an interpleader action each party seeking funds has the burden of proving its prior right to the deposited funds. See Worden v. Thornburg, 564 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Celanese Coating Co., DeVoe Paint Div. v. Soliz, 541 S.W.2d 243, 248-49 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and Northshore Bank v. Commercial Credit Corp., 668 S.W.2d 787, 789 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

We consider the above authorities as distinguishable from the matters before us for the reason that it is not shown in those cases that the summary judgments under attack were both sought and granted on a specific ground, as specifically expressed in both the motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Griffin v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 25 d3 Outubro d3 1995
    ... ... after opening a new checking account with a bank. The checks were not the design he had chosen ... State, 682 S.W.2d 346 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, pet. ref'd) ...          Where the ... ...
  • McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 21 d3 Abril d3 1993
    ... ...         Westbrook Const. Co. v. Fidelity Bank of Dallas, 813 S.W.2d ... See, e.g., Roark v. Stallworth Oil and Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 494-95 (Tex.1991) ("[A]n ... v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville, 704 S.W.2d 916, 918 ... ...
  • Ellis v. Renaissance On Turtle Creek Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 17 d4 Abril d4 2014
    ... ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. March 18, 2014. Rehearing Overruled April 17, ... 's fees incurred by the Association and its co-defendant to defend the suit filed by the ... bank, inquires whether the Association's records show ... Siding & Windows, Inc. v. Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n, 367 S.W.3d 490, 496 n. 2 ... , Ellis cites a single authority, Westbrook Construction Co., Inc. v. Fidelity National Bank ... ...
  • HSM Wynngate 04, Ltd. v. Tex. Sotherby Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 31 d3 Agosto d3 2016
    ... ... Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). We ... Frost Nat'l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 508-09 (Tex ... Ferguson, 160 S.W.3d 115, 123 (Tex. App.Dallas 2005, pet. denied). Thus, we agree with the ... See Westbrook Constr. Co. v. Fidelity Nat'l Bank of Dallas, 813 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT