Valdez, Jose Angel Dominguez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-00-00002-CR

Case Date: 07/19/2001

Plaintiff: Valdez, Jose Angel Dominguez

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County

Preview:NO. 07-04-0565-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D JUNE 2, 2006 ______________________________ CLOVIS CORPORATION d/b/a LLANO PERMIAN ENVIRONMENTAL, Appellant v. LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK and DIVERSIFIED LENDERS, INC., Appellees _________________________________ FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2003-522,192; HON. SAM MEDINA, PRESIDING _______________________________ Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Clovis Corporation d/b/a Llano Permian Environmental (Llano) appeals from a final summary judgment denying it recovery against Lubbock National Bank (the Bank) and Diversified Lenders, Inc. (Diversified). In turn, the Bank and Diversified appeal from an order denying them attorney's fees. According to the record, Llano sued the Bank and Diversified for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent inducement. The claims arose from a factor transaction. That is,

Diversified agreed to buy and Llano agreed to sell various accounts receivable. To effectuate that purpose, the two executed a document entitled "Security and Factoring Agreement." Shortly after the document was executed, Diversified assigned its interest in the contract to the Bank. The dispute before us concerned the Bank's decision to increase the amount of reserve it retained under the contract from 12.75% to 17.75%. In so raising the reserve, the Bank and/or Diversified allegedly breached the agreement, engaged in tortious interference with contract, breached various fiduciary duties owed Llano and committed fraud. After being sued, both the Bank and Diversified filed traditional and no evidence motions for summary judgment. So too did they request attorney's fees and court costs. Though the summary judgment motions were granted, those seeking fees and costs were denied. Through four issues, Llano contends that 1) the trial court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment, 2) a fact issue exists concerning whether the Bank and Diversified acted in bad faith, 3) the Bank and Diversified were not entitled to enforce the contract's early termination penalty provisions due to their bad faith, and 4) the Bank and Diversified may not invoke the contract to bar prosecution of its fraudulent inducement claim. The Bank and Diversified posit that the trial court should have awarded them fees and costs. We affirm the judgment in part and reverse and remand it in part. Llano Issue Two

Download 11310.pdf