reformation claim in Texas

2012Simpson v. Curtis, 351 S.W.3d 374, 378 (Tex.App.-Tyler *268 2010, no pet.).

2012Simpson v. Curtis, 351 S.W.3d 374, 378 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2010, no pet.).

2019See Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhouse, 641 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tex. 1982) (“The reformation claim was severed after summary judgment was granted for Cherokee, apparently in an effort to expedite appellate review of the declaratory judgment action.

1989Forderhause, 641 S.W.2d at 526 .

2018See Thornton, 425 S.W.3d at 300–302. 7 As noted, if the jury found Stahmann guilty under subsection (a)(1), then it explicitly found that: (1) knowing that an investigation or official proceeding was pending or in progress, (2) Stahmann altered, destroyed, or concealed a bottle of pills (3) with intent to impair its verity or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding.

2014The court determined that the jury must necessarily have found the five elements to have been proven when it found Thornton guilty of actual concealment of the crack pipe. 425 S.W.3d at 302 .

2021See Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause, 741 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Tex. 1987) (“The underlying objective of reformation is to correct a mutual mistake made in preparing a written instrument, so that the instrument truly reflects the original agreement of the parties.”) (emphasis original).

2021Traina, however, resigned his employment with Hargrove effective May 2018; accordingly, the 18-month covenant expired in November 2019, shortly before the parties filed their briefs in this case. “[T]he issue of reformation becomes moot after the term of the noncompetition covenant has expired.” Sadler Clinic Ass’n, P.A. v. Hart, 403 S.W.3d 891, 899 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied) (citing Weatherford Oil Tool Co. v. Campbell, 340 S.W.2d 950, 952 (Tex. 1960)).

2021Traina, however, resigned his employment with Hargrove effective May 2018; accordingly, the 18-month covenant expired in November 2019, shortly before the parties filed their briefs in this case. “[T]he issue of reformation becomes moot after the term of the noncompetition covenant has expired.” Sadler Clinic Ass’n, P.A. v. Hart, 403 S.W.3d 891, 899 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied) (citing Weatherford Oil Tool Co. v. Campbell, 340 S.W.2d 950, 952 (Tex. 1960)).

2019While it may have been preferable to try the 19 reformation issue before an appeal would normally lie, we cannot say that any abuse of discretion occurred.”); Arredondo v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 657, 665 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied); Smith v. Texas Farmers Ins.

2016See id.

2015Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 314 (Tex. 2006). 5 defects in a deed that result from mutual mistake.14 Once the presumption is rebutted, the reformation claim does not accrue until the grantor actually knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the mistake.15 But we have never decided a case involving a plain omission in an unambiguous deed.16 Sullivan reserved the possibility of recognizing a rebuttable presumption in plain-omission cases, but we never explicitly endorsed it, and we decline to do so now.

2014Chesapeake continued to treat the Cades as the mineral owners for years after execution of the deed, and no evidence shows that any 106 See Wagner & Brown, Ltd., 58 S.W.3d at 736 (Tex. 2001) (stating that royalty owners have some obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in protecting their interests). 34 circumstance that occurred before December 2010 should have put the Cades on inquiry about whether they had retained the mineral rights. 107 We hold that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment for Cosgrove on the reformation claim based on limitation, and we sustain this p

2013See Treviño v. Treviño, 64 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (overruling a motion to strike that challenges a late-filed motion implicitly modifies the docket control order).

2008Engine & Grinding Co., 956 S.W.2d 49, 58 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied); Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 779 S.W.2d 893, 903-04 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989), rev’d in part on other grounds, 811 Givens v. Ward Page 13 application of this established principle to the Givenses’ reformation claim will turn real estate law on its head or “create an undue burden on all vendees of real estate” as the Wards claim.

2008Engine & Grinding Co., 956 S.W.2d 49, 58 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied); Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 779 S.W.2d 893, 903-04 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989), rev’d in part on other grounds, 811 Givens v. Ward Page 13 application of this established principle to the Givenses’ reformation claim will turn real estate law on its head or “create an undue burden on all vendees of real estate” as the Wards claim.

1987Brown v. Harvard 593 S.W.2d 939, 943 (Tex.1980).