No. 13-0484
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on October 14, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on February 27, 2015. It then denied rehearing on May 1, 2015 File Closed
Tracking 3 articles about this case.
February 27, 2015
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:June 16, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 18 other cases.
March 23, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 8 other cases.
Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the CourtView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video . PDF
Appellate District: | 7th Court of Appeals |
Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
COA Docket No.: | 07-11-00199-CV |
Opinion Author: | Honorable Brian P. Quinn |
Trial Court: | 84th District Court |
County: | Hutchinson |
Trial Judge: | Honorable William D. Smith |
Trial Docket: | 39,255 |
Date | Event | Outcome | |
---|---|---|---|
2015-05-14 | Case Stored | ||
2015-05-01 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed | Denied | |
2015-05-01 | Mandate issued | ||
2015-03-16 | Motion for Rehearing | ||
2015-03-16 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
2015-02-27 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
2015-02-27 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court | |
This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between October 14, 2014 and February 27, 2015. | |||
2014-10-14 | Oral argument | ||
2014-09-10 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
2014-09-10 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
This case was waiting for oral argument between June 13, 2014 and September 10, 2014. | |||
2014-06-13 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
This case was waiting for oral argument between March 21, 2014 and June 13, 2014. | |||
2014-03-21 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
2014-03-21 | Petition for Review granted | ||
2014-02-10 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
2014-01-24 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
2014-01-22 | Case Record Filed | ||
2014-01-07 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
2013-12-23 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
2013-12-23 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
2013-11-25 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
2013-11-22 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
2013-10-14 | Call received | ||
2013-09-23 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
2013-08-23 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
2013-07-23 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
2013-07-17 | Response Waiver filed | ||
2013-06-28 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
Party | Counsel | Role | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
American Star Energy and Minerals Corporation |
|
Petitioner | |||
Stowers, Frank K. |
|
Respondent | |||
Stowers, Richard “Dick” |
|
Respondent |
When a plaintiff sues a partnership, must they immediately join the individual partners as defendants or risk having no recourse if the partnership entity turns out to be insolvent?
The underlying contract claim was brought against the partnership itself and, after about a decade of litigation, resulted in a judgment of liability that exceeded the partnership's own assets. The plaintiffs then turned to the individual partners for satisfaction, under the principle that they are jointly and severally liable for the partnership entity's debts. The partners invoked limitations, arguing that the clock had expired years before when they were not joined in the original action.
The Court held that limitations did not bar this post-judgment claim by a judgment creditor against individual partners.
It noted that the plaintiff could have sued the partners at the outset. And it acknowledged the general principle that a claim "accrues" when it could be brought. But, as the Court explained, the structure of this claim warranted a different result. The Court looked to the provisions of the Texas Revised Partnership Act, which makes this kind of liability contingent on there being a judgment entered against the partnership entity and on the entity failing to pay for 90 days. These features, the Court held, made this kind of statutory claim against individual partners more akin to indemnification than more typical tort or contract claims. Thus, the Court held, the claims were not barred by limitations.
When does this limitations clock start to run? Is it at the time judgment is entered against the partnership, when any appeal of that judgment is complete, or at some other time? This case did not require finely tuning that answer. The Court suggests that the limitations clock actually begins to run only when the judgment can be collected against an individual partner, which might mean 90 days after the judgment can be executed. So, a supersedeas filing may, it appears, have the side effect of extending the limitations period for collection claims against individual partners.