Hartman v. Hartman

9 Citing cases

  1. Parker v. State

    119 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that when jury charge was not erroneous, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to it

    The court of appeals in Jimenez v. State, however, found that the charge instruction was erroneous. Jimenez v. State, 992 S.W.2d 633, 638 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999), aff'd, 32 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). The Jimenez court cited our opinion in Green v. State, 839 S.W.2d 935, 946 (Tex.App.-Waco 1992, pet. ref'd).

  2. Zahra Spiritual Trust v. U.S.

    910 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that a finding of unity between the individual and the corporation "alone cannot establish an alter ego relationship under Texas law, because [Appellants] are not direct shareholders of [the corporation]"

    The relevant inquiry under section 24.03(a) is whether the debtor received monetary, not spiritual, consideration. E.g. Glenney v. Crane, 352 S.W.2d 773, 775-76 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (court compared legal value of the consideration received by the debtor with the value of the property conveyed); Hartman v. Hartman, 32 S.W.2d 233, 234 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1930, writ dism'd w.o.j.) (conveyance for recited consideration of $5 and love and affection is insufficient as against prior creditors). As the Texas Supreme Court pointed out in 1896:

  3. Donahey v. Donahey

    52 Ala. App. 596 (Ala. Civ. App. 1974)   Cited 10 times

    A party who cannot be deemed innocent is in no position to assert laches. Warren v. State, 26 Ala. App. 284, 158 So. 770; Lodahl v. Papenberg, Mo., 277 S.W.2d 548; Brock v. Brock, 281 Ala. 525, 205 So.2d 903; Lindley v. Lindley, 270 Ala. 570, 150 So.2d 746; Hartman v. Hartman, Tex. Civ. App., 32 S.W.2d 233; Franks v. State, 26 Ala. App. 430, 161 So. 549. WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

  4. Clay v. Siercovich

    388 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    The alternative count for recovery of sums the wife had spent for the child's support is not grounded upon or governed by the statute; it alleges a common-law obligation. Bully v. Gully, above. Appellee defends the summary judgment as to this claim for recovery on the contention it is barred by limitation. It is in the nature of an ordinary action for debt and is governed by the two-year statute of limitation, Art. 5526, V.A.C.S. Maxwell v. Maxwell, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 32, 39, writ ref. n. r. e.; Ramsey v. Oliver, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 332, 334, n. w. h.; Dilger v. Dilger, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 169, 170; Hartman v. Hartman, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 233, 234; 21 Tex.Jur.2d Sec. 393, p. 14. The common law duty of, and liability for support extends over the entire period of the child's minority, Gully v. Gully, above, and is not governed by the age limitation in Art. 4639a.

  5. Hayes v. Hayes

    378 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    The trial court properly excluded the pre-nuptial contract because it was not witnessed as is required by law. Article 4611, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St.; Ellington v. Ellington, 29 Tex. 2 (1867); Hickman v. Hickman, 10 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Civ.App., 1928, n. w. h.); Hartman v. Hartman, 32 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.Civ.App., 1930, writ dism.); Lieber v. Mercantile National

  6. Lieber v. Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas

    331 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Civ. App. 1960)   Cited 11 times

    In at least two instances it has been followed. Hickman v. Hickman, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 738; Hartman v. Hartman, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 233. Appellant says that art. 4611, V.A.C.S. is not applicable to oral contracts when the controversy is between the parties to the contract or those claiming under them.

  7. Ibanez v. State

    118 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)

    Therefore, as the husband's obligation to the State existed prior to the execution and delivery of the deed, and it was not shown that he had any other property in the State sufficient to satisfy the State's claim, the conveyance was void as to appellee insofar as it attempted to convey any interest belonging to the husband. Revised Statutes, Art. 3997; First National Bank of Ft. Worth v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ. App. 101 S.W.2d 1062; O'Banion, Sheriff, v. Henry, 128 Tex. 59, 96 S.W.2d 233; Hartman v. Hartman, Tex. Civ. App. 32 S.W.2d 233; Kelley v. Stubblefield, Tex. Civ. App. 26 S.W.2d 281; Guaranty B. L. Co. v. Keller, Tex. Civ. App. 104 S.W.2d 889, and cases cited. From what has been said it follows that any right of the wife to prevail must depend upon the status attaching to the property at the time of the deed from Garcia.

  8. Hartman v. Hartman

    109 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937)   Cited 2 times

    It may be conceded that the original conveyance from A. P. Hartman to his second wife on May 6, 1927, was for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and particularly as against his obligation to support and educate his minor children by his first wife. This was a legal and continuing obligation imposed upon him by law. Gulley v. Gulley, 111 Tex. 233, 231 S.W. 97, 15 A.L.R. 564; Hartman v. Hartman (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.2d 233, 234. In this regard, even as against future creditors, his conveyance was fraudulent.

  9. Ramsey v. Abilene Bldg. Loan

    57 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Civ. App. 1933)   Cited 4 times

    20 Tex.Jur. p. 415, § 56. Neither is one for a merely nominal consideration. Id. § 57; Goolsby v. Manning (Tex.Civ.App.) 270 S.W. 936; Hartman v. Hartman (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 233. The consideration recited in the deed in question is $10 and love and affection.