Can causes of action be assigned – General Rule and Exceptions
As a general
rule, causes of action are freely assignable. City of Brownsville ex rel. Pub.
Utils. Bd. v. AEP Tex, Cent. Co., 348 S.W.3d 348, 358 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011,
pet. denied). The Texas Supreme Court has recognized a few exceptions to this
general rule, but it has not held that bill-of-review claims may not be
assigned. See PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Partners Ltd. P'ship, 146
S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex.2004) (holding that "DTPA claims generally cannot be
assigned by an aggrieved consumer to someone else"); State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co. v. Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 696, 707-11 (Tex.1996) (discussing four
circumstances in which claims cannot be assigned: legal-malpractice claims,
Mary Carter agreements, assignments of a plaintiffs claim to a joint tortfeasor,
and assignments of certain interests in an estate). The law generally prohibits
the assignment of a claim only when the particular assignment presents specific
dangers, such as jury confusion, the multiplication of disputes, and potential
prejudice to the parties. See Gandy, 925 S.W.2d at 707-11. Unless the
assignment of a bill-of-review claim like HSBC's would present similar dangers,
the general rule of assignability ought to apply.
SOURCE: DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS - No. 05-10-00676-CV –
6/15/2012
The policy
of this State is to permit the assignment of a cause of action in the absence
of policy reasons to forbid the particular kind of assignment. See generally
Gandy, 925 S.W.2d at 705-11. We have not been presented with any reason to
conclude that permitting the assignment of Fieldstone's bill-of-review rights
to HSBC would be inimical to public policy. We conclude that HSBC is correct
and that Fieldstone's right to bring a bill of review to challenge the
underlying default judgment is assignable.
No comments:
Post a Comment