Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Whiting Petroleum Corp., RK Petroleum Corp. and Tremont Energy LLC sued Keith Hahn for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud. The suit also alleged causes of action against Core Exploration & Production Corp. The trial court entered a $1.6 million default judgment against all of the defendants. Hahn appeals. He argues that the default judgment should be reversed and a take-nothing judgment be entered in his favor. He raises several issues, including that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court first corrects Hahn by saying that if this court is to sustain any of Hahn’s arguments, the remedy is to reverse and remand, not to render. The court then reviews whether Hahn satisfies the three-part test found in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939), for entitlement to a new trial after a default judgment is entered: 1. whether he presented facts showing that his failure to appear was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to accident or mistake, 2. he set up a meritorious defense, and 3. he filed the motion for new trial when it would not cause delay or otherwise injure the prevailing party. The first element is met because Hahn’s attorney did not file an answer on Hahn’s behalf after Hahn forwarded the attorney the petition filed by the plaintiffs and asked him to file an answer. Presumably the attorney did not file the answer because he had a conflict of interest in the case � his firm had hired a lawyer who had filed the suit against Hahn on the plaintiffs’ behalf. The court finds that under T.R.Prof.Con. 1.06(a), the lawyer had an obligation to tell Hahn of this conflict. The court further finds that Hahn’s failure to appear was not intentional, as he mailed the attorney the petition the same day that he was served. The court then finds that Hahn meets the second prong of the Craddock test because he had a meritorious defense. His motion for new trial included evidence that indicated that he was not a party to any contract with the plaintiffs and owed no fiduciary duties to them. If proved, this would be a meritorious defense to the plaintiffs’ claims. As to the third Craddock prong, the court rules that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced, especially in light of Hahn’s offer to reimburse the plaintiffs for the attorneys’ fees and costs expended in securing the default judgment OPINION:Garza, J.; Ya”ez, Castillo, and Garza, JJ. DISSENT:Castillo, J. The dissent thinks that Hahn does not adequately explain why his attorney did not file an answer for him, as there is no affidavit from the attorney in the record. Without evidence, the dissent would find that Hahn did not prove that he lacked conscious indifference. The dissent would review the rest of Hahn’s arguments and find them all unavailing, either on substantive grounds or because he waived them.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.