Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. App. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. App. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: U.S. Bank National Association v. Bates (ca5, 2023-01-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) U.S. Bank National Association v. Bates
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Consequently, the lis pendens filed by Defendants is “void.” Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pelletier Management and Consulting, LLC v. InterBank
S.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
“A lis pendens notice is limited to situations where the title to the property is directly implicated by the results of the lawsuit.” Matter of Alabama & Dunlavy, Ltd., 983 F.3d 766 , 778 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ)); see also Tex. Prop.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jetall Companies, Inc. v. Gene Van Dyke and Astrid Van Dyke
Tex. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Code § 12.008; Olbrich v. Touchy, 780 S.W.2d 6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding); Moss v. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding); Helmsley–Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) County Investment, LP v. Royal West Investment, LLC, Series E and Shawn Shabazi (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Lyles, 881 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) ...................... 9 Cullins v. Foster, 171 S.W.3d 521, 530 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2005, pet. denied) .......... 6 Duke v. Power Electric and Hardware Co., 674 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1984, no writ)............................ 16 Griffin v. Rowden, 702 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) .............................. 9 Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ) 11, 12, 13 Kropp v. Prather, 526 S.W.2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re Saida Moreno
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Moss v. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 6 762, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding); Helmsley- Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nalle Plastics Family Limited Partnership v. Porter, Rogers, Dahlman & Gordon, P.C. and Patrick P. Rogers
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bell contended that the lease interpretation dispute was not an "action involving ... the establishment of an interest in real property.” See id.; Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 644-45 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding) (declaring void lis pendens filed in landlord/tenant dispute because section 12.007 was not applicable).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joe Sidney Williams v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
“If a lis pendens does not fall under the ambit of section 12.007…the opposing party is not required to comply with section 12.008…in order to ‘nullify, remove, or cancel the notice.’” Jordan v. Hagler, 179 S.W.3d 217 , 221 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (quoting Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Joseph Jordan D/B/A Premier Construction Services v. Burl and Brenda Hagler
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
DELIVERED: October 27, 2005 FOOTNOTES 1: If a lis pendens does not fall under the ambit of section 12.007 of the property code (which sets forth the requirements of a lis pendens), then the opposing party is not required to comply with section 12.008 (which provides the prescribed statutory methods for cancelling a lis pendens) in order to “nullify, remove, or cancel the notice.” Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton , 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding) ; see also Hughes v. Houston Nw.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jordan v. Hagler
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
If a lis pendens does not fall under the ambit of section 12.007 of the property code (which sets forth the requirements of a lis pendens), then the opposing party is not required to comply with section 12.008 (which provides the prescribed statutory methods for canceling a lis pendens) in order to "nullify, remove, or cancel the notice.” Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985), orig. proceeding); see also Hughes v. Houston Nw.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Collins
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex.1995) (orig.proceeding) (holding that if the plaintiffs seek a constructive trust only to satisfy a judgment that they might obtain against the defendant, "the interest is no more than a collateral interest in the property,” and the lis pendens is void); In re Med Plus Equity Inv., LP, No. 05-05-00404-CV, 2005 WL 1385238 , at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 13, 2005, orig. proceeding) (mem.op.) (holding that suit for interest in partnership will not support lis pendens); Moss, 722 S.W.2d at 763 ; Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re Burk Collins, Fountain Mall, Inc., and Mall Group, Ltd.
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Code Ann. § 12.007(a); see also Kroupa-Williams, 2005 WL 1367950 , at *3 (holding that claim of community property interest in real property in divorce proceeding was sufficient to support lis pendens); In re Fitzmaurice, 141 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding) (“Those cases in which lis pendens has been disallowed are those in which the subject property is collateral to the litigation.”). 17: See Moss v. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding); see also Hughes, 647 S.W.2d at 7 (holding that lis pendens was proper wh…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re Burk Collins, Fountain Mall, Inc., and Mall Group, Ltd.
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (holding that if the plaintiffs seek a constructive trust only to satisfy a judgment that they might obtain against the defendant, “the interest is no more than a collateral interest in the property,” and the lis pendens is void); In re Med Plus Equity Inv., LP, No. 05-05-00404-CV, 2005 WL 1385238 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2005, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding that suit for interest in partnership will not support lis pendens); Moss, 722 S.W.2d at 763 ; Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton…
cited Cited as authority (rule) in Re TSSD III, Ltd. Willy Jorssen Jacques Wittock Ignace Boterman Albert Santy Jan Camerlinck Carlina Holding, Ltd. Marc Corluy Andre Dauw Therese De Baecke Jan Demyttenaere Marc Grysolle Jacques Haegeman Joseph Hensen Impaco Nv
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Id . § 12.007(a); Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton , 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re Bryan Jamail
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Garza , 949 S.W.2d at 8 ; see also, e.g. , Flores v. Haberman , 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995); Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton , 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Jamail
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Garza, 949 S.W.2d at 8 ; see also, e.g., Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex.1995); Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thornburg v. Lynch (In Re Thornburg)
Bankr. E.D. Tex. · 2002 · confidence medium
Helmsley-Spear of Texas v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.Ct.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Garza v. Pope
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex.1995); Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Duval County Ranch Co.
Bankr. S.D. Tex. · 1993 · confidence medium
Texas Courts of Appeal have held, however, that when a Ms pendens does not come within the provisions of § 12.007, the party seeking to cancel it is not “required to comply with § 12.008 to nullify, remove or cancel the notice.” Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding), citing Lane v. Fritz, 404 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, no writ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Olbrich v. Touchy
Tex. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Moss v. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 762, 768 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ); Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc., v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Khraish v. Hamed (4×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
If proper analysis be applied, we must hold that any such attempted assertion of power by a trial court amounts to the exercise of injunctive relief, operating through section 31.001 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code which allows courts to give injunctive relief directly affecting the title to real estate. 2 Nevertheless, certain recent cases have held that, when a lis pendens is invalid because it does not meet the requirements of section 12.007 of the Property Code, a trial court, through interlocutory order in response to a common motion, may directly cancel the lis pendens, the primary…
cited Cited "see" Flat Stone Development Co. v. Jay Cohen
5th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Helmsley-Spear of Tex., Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App. 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." in Re Howard Chong
Tex. App. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding) (lis pendens that does 8 not come within the provisions of § 12.007 is void); Prappas v. Meyerland Com.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Central Allied Profit Sharing Trust v. Bailey
Colo. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Packard, 642 P.2d 57 (Colo.App.1982); see also Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Ct.App.1985); Hill v. L/A Management Corp., 234 Ga. 341 , 216 S.E.2d 97 (1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HELMSLEY-SPEAR OF TEXAS, INC. and Investment Properties Associates, Relators,
v.
Hon. William N. BLANTON, Jr., Respondent
A14-85-787-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Oct 17, 1985.
699 S.W.2d 643
Charles C. Crady, of Crady & Peden, A. Randall Friday, of Crady & Peden, William K. Luyties, of Lorance & Thompson, Houston, for relators., Greg Dasher, of Ducoff & Chanon, Houston, for respondent.
Brown, Sears, Ellis.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

J. CURTISS BROWN, Chief Justice.

This is an original petition for writ of mandamus. Its purpose is to require the Honorable William N. Blanton, Jr. to cancel a lis pendens. On October 10, 1985, we granted relators leave to file the mandamus. We conditionally grant the mandamus.

Relator Investment Properties Associates owns the Palms Center Shopping Center in Houston, Texas. Relator Helmsley-Spear has acted as agent for Investment Properties Associates in managing Palms Center. Relators are defendants in the suit out of which this petition for writ of mandamus arises. Right-On, Inc. of Palms Center, Stein’s, Inc. of Palms Center and Marvin Dashe are plaintiffs in that suit.

On April 4, 1979, Marvin Dasher DBA Right-On, Inc., signed a lease with Helms-ley-Spear of Texas, Inc. for the premises at 5250 Palms Center. On that same date, Marvin Dasher DBA Stein’s, executed a lease with Helmsley-Spear for the premises at 5252 Palms Center. Both leases were to run from March 1, 1979, to March 31,1989.

On September 27, 1982, Right-On, Inc., Stein’s, Inc., and Marvin Dasher filed suit against relators in the 11th District Court of Harris County, alleging breach of lease and constructive eviction and asking money damages.

In June 1985, relators reached agreement for the sale of Palms Center Shopping Center. On August 20, 1985, the Houston City Council authorized $1 million to finance renovation and restoration of Palms Center Shopping Center. In their second amended original petition, filed August 25, 1985, plaintiffs, in addition to money damages, asked the court to “impose a lien against the real property and improvements of the Palms Center, Shopping Center ... to protect the equitable title and rights of [the] Plaintiffs....”

On August 23, 1985, plaintiffs filed a notice of lis pendens. On September 17, 1985, relators moved the trial court for an order cancelling the lis pendens. That motion was denied September 30, 1985. Rela-tors contend the trial court abused its discretion in failing to cancel the lis pendens. A hearing for reconsideration of the motion to cancel the lis pendens has been set November 11, 1985.

The sale of Palms Center is to close on or before November 1, 1985. Relators contend the lis pendens is a cloud on the title and may interfere with the sale. The lis pendens, they argue, is void and failure to cancel it constituted a clear abuse of discretion.

The real parties in interest contend (1) the lis pendens is proper, (2) relators have other adequate legal remedies, and (3) rela-tors come to this Court with unclean hands and are undeserving of an equitable remedy-

[*645] A lis pendens may be filed during the pendency of an action involving title to real property, the establishment of an interest in real property, or an enforcement of an encumbrance against real property. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 12.007.

The real parties in interest contend their cause below attempts to establish an interest in the Palms Center property. Their pleading that a lien be imposed against the property is essentially a prayer for a judgment lien to assure any monetary damages which may be ultimately awarded are paid. The lien sought affects real property collaterally, not directly, and does not come within the provisions of § 12.007. Lane v. Fritz, 404 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1966, no writ). Accordingly, the lis pendens is void.

The real parties in interest argue relators have other adequate legal remedies. They suggest the lis pendens may be cancelled by the deposit of money into court or by an undertaking. While those are undeniably the prescribed statutory methods for can-celling a lis pendens, Tex.Prop. Code Ann. § 12.008, they are not applicable in this case.

Because we hold the lis pendens at issue did not come within the provisions of § 12.007, relators' are not required to comply with § 12.008 in order to nullify, remove or cancel the notice. Lane v. Fritz, 404 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, no writ).

The real parties in interest offer an impassioned argument that relators come to this Court with unclean hands and are, thus, undeserving of the equitable relief of mandamus. While their assertions are undeniably spirited, they are unsupported by the record before us except for bare allegations in their petitions filed below.

The lis pendens in this matter is void. Respondent should have granted relators’ request to cancel it. We assume respondent will comply with the opinion of this Court. In the event he fails to do so before October 23, 1985, a writ of mandamus will issue.

The writ is conditionally granted.

SEARS, J., not participating.