debt claim in Texas

2021Co., 101 S.W.3d 619, 627 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)).

2018Co., 101 S.W.3d 619, 627 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). –19– Flores testified that she spoke with Haug in November 2013 seeking payment for the drywall materials, sent all of the outstanding invoices to Skyline, and never received payment.

2021Co., 648 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tex. 1983)). “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Id. (quoting Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2021Co., 648 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tex. 1983)). “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Id. (quoting Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2006Id. “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2006Id. “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2018Co., 648 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tex. 1983); Jones, 614 S.W.2d at 100 . “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2018Co., 648 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tex. 1983); Jones, 614 S.W.2d at 100 . “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

1984Ex parte Yates, 387 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex.1965); Ex parte Duncan, 462 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex.Civ.App.

1980Ex Parte Yates, 387 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.1965), Ex Parte Neff, 542 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Civ.App.-Ft.

2018Code Ann. § 38.002 (2)– (3); Gordon v. Leasman, 365 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (stating that presentment may be oral and that all that is “necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim”); W.

2015See Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 ; see also Belew v. Rector, 202 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2006, no pet.) (stating that presentment may be done orally or in writing and may be accomplished with.requests for admission, but that “[m]erely filing a breach of. contract claim, however, is insufficient”). “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for-compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 (quoting Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2018See Amirsaleh, 27 A.3d at 529–30; CitiSteel USA, 758 A.2d at 931 .

2018See Amirsaleh, 27 A.3d at 529–30; CitiSteel USA, 758 A.2d at 931 .

1984Ex parte Yates, 387 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex.1965); Ex parte Duncan, 462 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex.Civ.App.

1980Ex parte Yates, 387 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex.1965); Ex parte Duncan, 462 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex.Civ.App.

2008Harrison , 981 S.W.2d at 719 . "[A] ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim." Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2008Harrison, 981 S.W.2d at 719 . “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2016Id. at 493 . “[T]he general rule [is] that paying part of a debt does not bar the further accrual of interest.” Hand & Wrist Ctr. of Houston, P.A. v. Republic Servs., Inc., 401 S.W.3d 712, 721 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Hoxie Implement Co., Inc. v. Baker, 65 S.W.3d 140, 156 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, pet. denied)); J.M.

2013Hoxie Implement Co., 65 S.W.3d at 156 .

2023See Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990).

2020Id. (citations omitted). 16 Anglo-Dutch, 522 S.W.3d at 490 (citation omitted). “[T]he general rule [is] that paying part of a debt does not bar the further accrual of interest.” Id. (citations omitted).

2020Id. (citations omitted). 16 Anglo-Dutch, 522 S.W.3d at 490 (citation omitted). “[T]he general rule [is] that paying part of a debt does not bar the further accrual of interest.” Id. (citations omitted).

2019In each and every case we have applied Hughes tolling, the legal services providing the basis for the malpractice claim occurred directly in, and were integrally connected to, the prosecution or defense of a claim: 18 • drafting of an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment precedent to a termination suit and adoption proceeding;62 • allowing the statute of limitations to lapse after being retained to make a claim for asbestos-related personal injuries;63 • failing to provide sufficient notice when prosecuting a debt claim through a foreclosure sale;64 • trial counsel’s mishandling of an insuran

2019Renda may have had a debt claim against Marine, but even assuming Erikson was simultaneously advising both sides of that loan transaction,61 the mere rendition of legal advice does not constitute “the prosecution or defense of a claim.” If it were sufficient, those words—which we have repeated in every articulation of the rule—would serve no purpose in 57 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at 311 (11th ed. 2019). 58 Id. at 1476. 59 Id. at 528. 60 Id. 61 See Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90, 96 (Tex. 2016) (to prevail on a legal-malpractice claim, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the att

2018Beach Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac, 94 S.W.3d 248, 269 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (“Presentment does not require a party to follow a particular form—it may be informal or even oral.”).

2016Id. at 493 . “[T]he general rule [is] that paying part of a debt does not bar the further accrual of interest.” Hand & Wrist Ctr. of Houston, P.A. v. Republic Servs., Inc., 401 S.W.3d 712, 721 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Hoxie Implement Co., Inc. v. Baker, 65 S.W.3d 140, 156 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, pet. denied)); J.M.

2015Co., 101 S.W.3d 619, 627 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)); see Carr, 744 S.W.2d at 271 (holding that letter notifying opposing party of termination of contract and requesting release of letter of credit constituted proper presentment because “[t]he elements.of notice, time and proof of amount are -all present”).

2015Co., 101 S.W.3d 619, 627 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)); see Carr, 744 S.W.2d at 271 (holding that letter notifying opposing party of termination of contract and requesting release of letter of credit constituted proper presentment because “[t]he elements of notice, time and proof of amount are all present”).

2015It provides that a person must bring suit on a debt claim “not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.” Id.; Stine v. Stewart, 80 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Tex. 2002).

2015See Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 (holding that, to prove presentment, “a party [must] show that its, assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was'made to the opposing party”); see also Helping Hands Home Care, Inc., 393 S.W.3d at 516-17 (holding that agreed order for temporary injunction and agreed extension oí temporary restraining order do not meet presentment requirement because neither • document “says anything about the proof of the amount -owing” and neither document “contains a specific demand from [the defendant]-for payment”).

2015See Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 (holding that, to prove presentment, “a party [must] show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party”); see also Helping Hands Home Care, Inc., 393 S.W.3d at 516–17 (holding that agreed order for temporary injunction and agreed extension of temporary restraining order do not meet presentment requirement because neither document “says anything about the proof of the amount owing” and neither document “contains a specific demand from [the defendant] for payment”).

2015See Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 ; see also Belew v. Rector, 202 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2006, no pet.) (stating that presentment may be done orally or in writing and may be accomplished with.requests for admission, but that “[m]erely filing a breach of. contract claim, however, is insufficient”). “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for-compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to pay the claim.” Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 (quoting Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2015See Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 ; see also Belew v. Rector, 202 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.) (stating that presentment may be done orally or in writing and may be accomplished with requests for admission, but that “[m]erely filing a breach of contract claim, however, is insufficient”). “[A]ll that is necessary is that a party show that its assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party, and the opposing party refused to 23 pay the claim.” Gordon, 365 S.W.3d at 116 (quoting Standard Constructors, Inc. v. Chevron Chem.

2015Busch v. Hudson & Keyse, LLC, 312 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010,' no pet.).

2015See Jaster v. Comet II Const., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 , 564–65 (“claim” is assertion of legal right to payment or equitable remedy) (Tex. 2014) (plurality op.); Jones, 614 S.W.2d at 100 (“presentment” simply means demand or request for payment or performance); Ferch, 2009 WL 349149 , at *11 (claimant must show that its “assertion of a debt or claim and a request for compliance was made to the opposing party” (emphasis added)).