|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
HOTZE V. TURNER (21-1037) - view video
2/1/2023 @ 9:00 AM (length 46:34)
Originating county: Harris County
Originating from: 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston
Case Documents
This case concerns a pair of ballot propositions, Propositions 1 and 2, that were submitted to Houston voters in 2004. Both were designed to provide tax relief to city residents. The ordinance submitting them to an election included a "poison pill" provision after the text of Proposition 1. The provision stated that "[i]f another proposition for a Charter amendment relating to limitations in City revenues is approved at the same election at which this proposition is also approved, and if this proposition receives the higher number of favorable votes, then this proposition shall prevail and the other shall not become effective."
|
|
|
FISCHER V. BOOZER (22-0050) - view video
3/22/2023 @ 9:50 AM (length 47:38)
Originating county: Tarrant County
Originating from: 2nd District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth
Case Documents
The issue in this case is who is liable when parties to a settlement agreement place disputed funds in an account controlled by the attorney of one party, and the attorney steals the funds.The CTMI parties and Fischer settled most of their claims arising from a previous dispute over the sale of a tax-consulting business. The settlement agreement provided that CTMI's attorney, Holmes, would hold the disputed funds in an escrow account until the conclusion of the litigation. Whichever party prevailed was entitled to the funds in the account. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled for Fischer. When Fischer went to collect the funds he was entitled to, the parties learned that Holmes had absconded with the money.CTMI sued Fischer for a declaratory judgment that CTMI had fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement by placing the disputed funds in Holmes' account. Fischer counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court rendered judgment for CTMI, but the court of appeals reversed. A main issue in the court of appeals was whether the settlement agreement created a valid escrow agreement. Relying on caselaw describing an escrow agreement as involving the deposit of funds with a neutral third party, the court held that the settlement agreement did not create an escrow agreement because Holmes was not a neutral third party. The court thus concluded that CTMI had breached the agreement by failing to pay Fischer the amount owed to him.
|
|
|
|
|