law-unclean-hands-doctrine
Unclean Hands
In his third issue, Ryals argues that Ogden is not entitled to equitable relief under the “unclean
hands" doctrine because she admitted to using rental income from the property to pay attorney's fees.
This doctrine requires a person who comes into a court of equity to enter with
clean hands. Grohn v. Marquardt, 657 S.W.2d 851, 855 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.
r.e.). The equitable maxim is confined to misconduct in regard to, or at all events connected with, the
matter in litigation, so that it has in some measure affected the equitable relations subsisting between
the two parties, and arising out of the transaction. Lazy M Ranch, Ltd. v. TXI Operations, LP, 978 S.
W.2d 678, 683 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, pet. denied). It does not extend to any misconduct, however
gross, unconnected with the matter in litigation, and with which the opposite party has no concern.
See Axelson v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex. 1990). The unclean hands doctrine should not
be applied when the defendant has not been seriously harmed and the wrong complained of can be
corrected. Paciwest, Inc. v. Warner Alan Properties, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 559, 571 (Tex. App.-Fort
Worth 2008, pet. denied). It is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether a party has
unclean hands and whether the party's alleged fraudulent actions should bar equitable relief. Grohn,
657 S.W.2d at 855.
Ryals v. Ogden (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009) (Boyce)
(temporary injunction appeal, multiple proceedings in different courts, unclean hands doctrine
inapplicable, res judicata does not apply, other court did not have jurisdiction, collateral attack on
prior judgment).
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce
Before Justices Anderson, Frost and Boyce
14-07-01008-CV Kenneth Ryals, Managing Trustee of East Texas Investment Trust v. Lisa
Ogden, Steven Gayle and Wayne Westbrook
Appeal from 55th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Judge (now Justice) Jeffrey V. Brown
Because the district court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law addressing whether Ogden
had unclean hands, the issue before us is whether Ryals's assertion that the temporary injunction
should have been denied because Ogden had unclean hands is supported by the record. See Davis
v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 861-62 (Tex. 1978). The county court judgment recited that Ryals as the
managing trustee of the Trust was entitled to recover past due rent from Maxie Westbrook, Guinn,
and any of their tenants including Ogden. The county court appointed a receiver to facilitate the
turnover of rental income to Ryals. At the district court hearing on the temporary injunction, Ogden
admitted that she had used a portion of the rental income from the property to pay her attorney's
fees. Ryals argues that because Ogden has failed to follow the county court's turnover order, she is
not entitled to equitable relief in the district court.
Even if this court were to conclude that Ogden's conduct in diverting the Trust's rent payments from
the receiver and failing to comply with the county court's turnover order were sufficient to invoke
application of the unclean hands doctrine, that conclusion would not provide any basis to reverse the
trial court because Ogden was only one of three plaintiffs granted relief. A finding that Ogden had
unclean hands would not bar injunctive relief for the other two plaintiffs C Steven Gayle and Wayne
Westbrook, neither of whom were alleged to have come to court with unclean hands. Therefore,
even if this court were to find merit in Ryals's “unclean hands" argument as to Ogden, Ryals still could
not prevail on appeal because he has not even attempted to demonstrate that the injunctive relief is
not sustainable as to the other two plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. We overrule Ryals's third
issue.
Design Electric v. Cadence McShane Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 30, 2007)(Seymore)
(construction contract, clean unclean hands)
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Justices Brock Yates, Edelman and Seymore
14-06-00703-CV Design Electric v. Cadence McShane Corporation
Appeal from 281st District Court of Harris County (Hon. David Jorge Bernal)