Ontiveros v. Flores

218 S.W.3d 70, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 526, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 190, 2007 WL 624079
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 2, 2007
Docket06-0607
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 218 S.W.3d 70 (Ontiveros v. Flores) 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
Ontiveros v. Flores, 218 S.W.3d 70, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 526, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 190, 2007 WL 624079 (Tex. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Juan Flores sued Petitioners Candelario and Melissa Ontiveros and Med Care Emergency Medical Services (collectively “Ontiveros”) for fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with a contract, conspiracy, conversion, and fraud. The trial court granted Ontiveros’s motion for summary judgment as to all causes of action. Flores appealed and the court of appeals reversed and remanded as to all claims. 218 S.W.3d 98. Ontiveros urges that the court of appeals erred by reversing as to causes of action that Flores did not complain about.

The parties now agree that in the court of appeals, Flores complained only about the summary judgment granted on his claims for fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty. Because Flores did not assert error as to his claims for tortious interference with a contract, conspiracy, conversion, and fraud claims, he waived error as to them. See Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d 653, 655-56 (Tex.2001) (citing San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 209-10 (Tex.1990)). The court of appeals erred in reversing the summary judgment on those claims. Id.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 59.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the petition for review, and without hearing oral argument we reverse that part of the court of appeals’ judgment reversing and remanding Flores’s claims for tortious interference with a contract, conspiracy, conversion, and fraud claims. We affirm the trial court judgment that Flores takes nothing on those claims.

Ontiveros does not challenge the court of appeals’ judgment reversing summary judgment on Flores’s claims for fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty so we do not address them.

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

Related

Buck Murray v. the Hondo National Bank
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
John Tiegen v. Frederic Slice
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
Alice Irving v. Church of Christ, Boerne
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016
Roberts v. Roper
373 S.W.3d 227 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)
Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc.
793 F. Supp. 2d 825 (N.D. Texas, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 S.W.3d 70, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 526, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 190, 2007 WL 624079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ontiveros-v-flores-tex-2007.