Rhodes v. Kelly

18 Citing cases

  1. Rummans v. HSBC Bank U.S.

    3:22-cv-02046-M-BT (N.D. Tex. Sep. 1, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Under Texas law, the elements of an action to quiet title are: (1) an interest in a specific property; (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant; and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. Rhodes v. Kelly, 2017 WL 2774452, at *10 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied); Cook-Bell v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 868 F.Supp.2d 585, 591 (N.D. Tex. 2012).

  2. Johnson v. Johnson

    No. 01-22-00457-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 5, 2024)

    In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, "we will not unsettle a trial court's determination as to whether pleadings include sufficient allegations to give fair notice of a claim." Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *9 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (quoting Mandeville, 2015 WL 7455436, at *6); see also In re D.T.M., No. 01-01-00241-CV, 2002 WL 31521151, at *7 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 14, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding when father requested decrease in child support payments, "he put the entire category of child support at issue," and even though he only requested reduction, trial court had broad discretion to increase child support payments); Boriack v. Boriack, 541 S.W.2d 237, 242 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1976, writ dism'd) ("In matters concerning the support and custody of children the paramount concern of the court is the best interest of the children and the technical rules of pleading and practice are of little importance.").

  3. Fernandez v. Dunlap

    No. 05-23-00765-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 28, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    This means that all issues were in dispute as to Gutierrez, and appellees were required to offer evidence at trial to prove their claims against her. See id.; see also Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *10 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied) ("[A] post-answer default judgment can generally be challenged for sufficiency of the evidence.").

  4. In re Tabakman

    No. 14-23-00121-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 16, 2024)

    When factual assertions are controverted, the question of whether the failure to answer was intentional or the result of conscious indifference is a fact question. Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *8 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also Est. of Pollack v. McMurrey, 858 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Tex. 1993). "Consciously indifferent conduct occurs when 'the defendant knew it was sued but did not care.'"

  5. Shaw v. Bishop Airfield Ranch, LLC

    No. 05-22-00765-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    , see Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam), the effect of which is to declare invalid or ineffective the defendant's claim to title. Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *10 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.). To prevail on a suit to quiet title, the plaintiff must show (1) an interest in a specific property, (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant, and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable.

  6. Eldorado Homeowners' Ass'n v. Clough

    No. 05-22-00198-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 2, 2024)   Cited 3 times

    See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Green Int'l v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tex. 1997) ("A failure to segregate attorneys' fees in a case containing multiple causes of action, only some of which entitle the recovery of attorneys' fees, can result in the recovery of zero attorneys' fees" but "if no one objects to the fact that the attorneys' fees are not segregated as to specific claims, then the objection is waived"); Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *14 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (party waived error regarding segregation of fees by failing to address issue in motion for new trial or other trial court proceedings).

  7. Hizar v. Heflin

    672 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App. 2023)   Cited 11 times

    Id. (error was waived where party did not object to failure to segregate fees between different projects and various claims and defenses in the jury question regarding fees) (citing Hruska v. First State Bank of Deanville , 747 S.W.2d 783, 785 (Tex. 1988) ); Rhodes v. Kelly , No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *14 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (party waived error on attorney's fees issues, including segregation of fees, by failing to address issue in motion for new trial or other proceedings in trial court); Morey v. Page , 802 S.W.2d 779, 785 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, no pet.)

  8. Downtown Mckinney Partners, LLC v. Intermckinney, LLC

    No. 05-22-00501-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    In a suit to quiet title the plaintiff must show (1) an interest in a specific property, (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant, and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *10 (Tex. App.- Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

  9. TFHSP, LLC v. U.S. Bank

    No. 05-22-00002-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 8, 2023)

    However, the kind of relief that U.S. Bank sought by way of its quiet title claim does not align with the elements for a suit to quiet title. In such a suit, the plaintiff has the burden to show (1) an interest in a specific property, (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant, and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *10 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing, inter alia, Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47, 61 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, pet. denied)). "[T]he plaintiff in a quiet-title suit must prove that he has a right of ownership and that the adverse claim is a cloud on the title that equity will remove," Brumley v. McDuff, 616 S.W.3d 826, 835 (Tex. 2021) (internal quotation omitted), but U.S. Bank has made clear that it was not seeking to dispel any clouds on its title.

  10. Full of Faith Christian Ctr. v. May

    No. 05-20-00859-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 11, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    When the defendant's factual assertions are controverted, the question of whether the defendant's failure to answer was intentional or the result of conscious indifference is a fact question. Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *8 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 27, 2017, pet. denied)