Flores v. Haberman
This text of 915 S.W.2d 477 (Flores v. Haberman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This mandamus concerns the propriety of notices to file lis pendens. Because the interest asserted by the real parties in interest is not one articulated in Texas Property Code § 12.007(a), we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to cancel the notices of lis pendens.
Plaintiffs brought a suit for conversion against Flores. They alleged that he converted property and used the proceeds to buy certain other properties. In their petition, they sought the imposition of a constructive trust on the property. They filed notices of lis pendens on the purchased properties, and sought to have a constructive trust placed on those properties.
A party may file a lis pendens during the pendency of an action involving: 1) title to real property, 2) the establishment of an interest in real property, or 3) the enforcement of an encumbrance against real property. Tbx.Peop.Code § 12.007(a). In the present case, the plaintiffs seek a constructive trust in the purchased properties only to satisfy the judgment they seek against Flores. As such, the interest is no more than a collateral interest in the property. Moss v. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding). Therefore the notices of lis pen-dens are improper.
Without hearing oral argument, a majority of this Court conditionally grants the petition for mandamus directing the district judge to cancel the notices of lis pendens and vacate the earlier order refusing to cancel the notices of lis pendens. Tex.R.App.P. 122.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
915 S.W.2d 477, 1995 WL 453272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-haberman-tex-1996.