- 6 -
From October 23, 1986, to January 30, 1987, petitioner
executed three deeds of trust, encumbering his community property
interest in the Southampton property as security for loans from
Union Bank & Trust of Dallas (Union Bank). On December 17, 1987,
Union Bank released the three deeds of trust. In a letter dated
December 18, 1987, Union Bank provided Ms. Smith’s attorney with
the following explanation for the release:
Pursuant to your letter demanding our release of liens
on * * *[the Southampton property], we have consulted
with our attorney and have agreed to release our liens
on the property. It does appear that the liens were
granted in violation of an injunction at the time, and
since * * *[petitioner] has deeded the property to
* * *[Ms. Smith] as a result of their divorce, our
unrecorded liens are invalid.
Petitioner ultimately repaid the underlying liability to
Union Bank and added as a cause of action in his aforementioned
suit against Ms. Smith a claim that Ms. Smith breached the
indemnity provision of the divorce agreement by failing to assume
the obligation for the liens on the Southampton property. As
with the conversion claim, the trial court granted Ms. Smith’s
motion for summary judgment with respect to the aforementioned
breach claim on grounds that petitioner had agreed pursuant to
the 1989 settlement agreement not to reopen the divorce case or
the divorce agreement. The court held petitioner to be barred by
judgment and estopped by agreement from asserting the
aforementioned breach claim against Ms. Smith. On appeal, the
appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision on grounds that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011