law-sanctions-on-appeal | sanctions in the trial courts |
SANCTIONS ON APPEAL
McKenney asserts that Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus is groundless and he should be reimbursed for
attorney’s fees incurred to defend the trial court’s orders. He relies on Rule 52.11 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. However, the contention is not briefed.
This Court must exercise the discretion afforded by Rule 52.11 with caution and only after careful
deliberation. In re Lerma, 144 S.W.3d 21, 26 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding). The denial of
mandamus relief does not automatically establish that a petition was so clearly groundless as to warrant
sanctions. Id. In Twist v. McAllen Nat. Bank, 248 S.W.3d 351, 364-68 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 2007,
mandamus denied and appeal dism’d), the court held a show cause hearing and determined that sanctions
were appropriate under Rule 52.11 in a case with a “long and arduous history.” Counsel misstated the law to
the court in Twist’s petition. When confronted by the court, counsel backtracked and amended his petition to
delete the misstatements. Id. at 366. The court also noted that Twist’s petition failed to address or acknowledge
controlling authority on a point directly contrary to Twist’s argument. Id. at 367. Sanctions were also imposed
due to the identical arguments having been raised in a previous mandamus which the court had denied. The
court found that Twist’s counsel knowingly and in bad faith filed a second petition for writ of mandamus. Id.
In Re J.W. Resources Exploration and Development (Tex.App.- Amarillo, Aug. 25, 2009)(Pritle)(mandamus
against order compelling arbitration denied)(jury waiver, fraudulent inducement argument against enforcement
of arbitration clause fails)
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Justice Pirtle
Before Chief Justice Quinn, Justices Hancock and Pirtle
07-09-00189-CV In Re J.W. Resources Exploration and Development, Inc., Joe Watkins, and Jim Blankenship,
Relators
The circumstances presented in the mandamus proceeding before us do not rise to the level requiring
imposition of sanctions. We decline to award McKenney fees under Rule 52.11.
09‑0687
BOBBIE WASHINGTON v. ANNIE MARIE GARRETT SMITH, ET AL.; from Harrison County; 6th district
(06‑08‑00121‑CV, 289 SW3d 362, 06‑30‑09, pet denied Oct 2009)
(probate litigation, removal of administratrix, dependent, independent administration of estate, attorneys fees,
appellate sanctions denied)
08-0557
BARI WALKER v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY A/K/A TRAVELERS INSURANCE; from Harris County;
14th district (14-07-00238-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-15-08, pet. denied July 2009)
(insurance coverage, auto damage, appellate sanctions denied)