Howell v. Fifth Court of Appeals

689 S.W.2d 396, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 232, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 740
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 6, 1985
DocketC-3307
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 689 S.W.2d 396 (Howell v. Fifth Court of Appeals) 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.

Bluebook
Howell v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 689 S.W.2d 396, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 232, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 740 (Tex. 1985).

Opinions

CAMPBELL, Justice.

This is an original mandamus action. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District ordered the Honorable Charles Ben Howell, relator, to allow a nonsuit in a case filed in his court, the 191st Judicial District of Dallas County. Judge Howell seeks to have the court of appeals’ order vacated.

On March 17, 1984, Brenda J. Farnham sued Hilti, Inc. and Mark Spiegal to recover damages for the death of her husband, Stephen Douglas Farnham.’ Brenda also sued as next friend of her minor children, Christina Mechelle and Chad Douglas Farn-ham, and as representative of Stephen’s estate. Francis Lincoln Farnham, the deceased’s father, and David Klucker also sued to recover damages for Stephen’s death.

The parties negotiated a settlement and requested Judge Howell’s approval of the agreement. Judge Howell appointed Diamond J. Pantaze to represent the children as guardian ad litem. Judge Howell orally appointed Pantaze on May 15 and the appointment is noted on the docket sheet. On May 21, Brenda Farnham, individually and in her representative capacities, filed a non-suit. A written order appointing Pantaze was signed on June 5. Judge Howell refused to allow the nonsuit.

The court of appeals, by mandamus, ordered Judge Howell to allow the nonsuit. Judge Howell now seeks to have the court of appeals’ judgment vacated.

In oral argument this court was advised that Brenda J. Farnham, individually and in representative capacities, and the other plaintiffs, filed suit in the 348th Judicial District in Tarrant County. This suit involved the same parties and was based on the same occurrence as the Dallas County suit. A final judgment was rendered.

Further, the Tarrant County district court judgment, dated June 15, 1984, reflects that another guardian, ad litem was appointed to represent the two minor children. In that judgment, Brenda is to receive $343,500 in cash from which all attor[397]*397neys fees and court costs are to be deducted; $25,000 is to be placed in an interest-bearing account and released to Christina on her 18th birthday, and $20,000 is to be placed in a similar account to be released to Chad on his 18th birthday. Brenda is to receive $1,300 per month and a lump sum payment of $25,000 in five years, $50,000 in ten years, $75,000 in fifteen years and $100,000 in twenty years. Christina is to receive $10,000 per year for five years beginning on her 18th birthday. Chad will receive $10,000 per year for four years beginning on his 18th birthday and $15,000 on the fifth year after he reaches 18.

The judgment rendered in Tarrant County is final. Therefore, the mandamus is denied.

ROBERTSON, J., concurs. GONZALEZ, J., dissents, in which McGEE and KILGARLIN, JJ., join.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Guarantee v. ACE
990 F.3d 842 (Fifth Circuit, 2021)
American Guarantee & Liability v. ACE American Ins
983 F.3d 203 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)
in Re: Heritage Operating, L.P. A/K/A Denman Propane
468 S.W.3d 240 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
in Re: Catholic Diocese of El Paso (San Lorenzo Church)
465 S.W.3d 808 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Byrd v. Woodruff
891 S.W.2d 689 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Welch
702 S.W.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Howell v. Fifth Court of Appeals
689 S.W.2d 396 (Texas Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
689 S.W.2d 396, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 232, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-fifth-court-of-appeals-tex-1985.