One evening, sitting by the fireplace, sipping on a cup of hot coco, I found myself musing on the subject of contract interpretation. I was pondering various active cases and my fading memory of my first year of law school when I had two revelations: 1) I am getting old, and 2) I had no idea if “construe against the grantor” was a rule or a canon. I suspected that I was not the first attorney to have this particular question, so I became determined to find the answer and share it with you.
Email has become the standard form of written communication in the business world. It should come as no surprise that the laws have adapted to accommodate this new age of electronic communication. We routinely enter into contracts while shopping online, but the formality of the experience leaves little question that we are entering into an enforceable agreement. What many of us fail to recognize is that an enforceable agreement can be reached as a result of an exchange of emails.
In just about every publication aimed at the legal profession there will be an article about the joys of being a lawyer. In such articles, the lawyer will often tell a story about his or her humble beginnings and how, through hard work and determination, they were able to complete law school and pass the bar. The article will usually go on to describe the joys of helping people and serving the community. I do not doubt the sincerity of those authors. I too am at my happiest when I am serving a noble cause and helping my fellow man. Assuming those are the noble reasons for being a lawyer, the following are the Top Five other reasons I love being a lawyer.
In the law, “waiver” is defined as the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Lawyers waive defenses and legal argument in courts more often than you might think. Sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s the result of the lawyer’s mistake. A lawyer forgets to raise a defense, or simply overlooks one.
In a rare move, the Dallas Court of Appeals has levied sanctions against a party for filing a frivolous appeal of a trial court’s order denying that party’s special appearance. In Estate of Deuel-Nash, 2014 WL 5581044 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, n.p.h.), the defendant (Nash) in a probate proceeding filed a plea to the jurisdiction (which is different from a special appearance contesting personal jurisdiction) and later filed a “motion to nonsuit” the plea to the jurisdiction. The defendant also served a non-party with a subpoena. The defendant thereafter failed to produce documents in response to a demand from the plaintiff, prompting the trial court to issue an order to the defendant to appear and respond to the plaintiff’s motion to show cause. In response to that order, the defendant filed a special appearance, contesting the probate court’s jurisdiction over him.
