Flores v. Haberman
Cases that cite this one
49 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. James A. Howard, Receiver for Tesher Corp. (Tex. App. 2007)
- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Howard (Tex. App. 2007)
- Jo Ann Rivera and Philip Martin Ross v. Swaminarayan Gurukul-USA, a Texas Corporation (Tex. App. 2023)
- in Re GMAC Mortgage Corporation (Tex. App. 2006)
- In re Fitzmaurice (Tex. App. 2004)
- Century Marine, Inc. v. Vaglica (Tex. App. 2000)
- in Re Moody National Kirby Houston S, LLC (Tex. App. 2013)
- in Re Howard Chong (Tex. App. 2019)
- In re QFP II, LP and RGV II, LLC v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025)
- in Re Rowland J. Martin (Tex. App. 2015)
- In re Cohen (Tex. App. 2011)
- in Re Jay H. Cohen (Tex. App. 2011)
- In re Collins (Tex. App. 2005)
- in Re Burk Collins, Fountain Mall, Inc., and Mall Group, Ltd. (Tex. App. 2005)
- in Re Burk Collins, Fountain Mall, Inc., and Mall Group, Ltd. (Tex. App. 2005)
- In re Joseph Jackson Baylor Asset Management LLC RL 360 Funding LLC JCLZ Legacy LLC DCT Entity Management LLC DVI Opportunities Unlimited, Inc, Kilgore Commons, LLC v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024)
- Lee v. BDFI, LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas 2019)
- Jay H. Cohen, Individually and as Trustee of the JHC Trust I and II v. Sandcastle Homes, Inc. (Tex. App. 2015)
- First Bank & Trust Company v. Centura Land Corporation F/K/A Iori Centura, Inc. (Tex. App. 2015)
- in Re Albert Ortiz (Tex. App. 2013)
- National City Bank of Indiana v. Ortiz (Tex. App. 2013)
- Joe Sidney Williams v. State (Tex. App. 2010)
- In re Jamail (Tex. App. 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This mandamus concerns the propriety of notices to file lis pendens. Because the interest asserted by the real parties in interest is not one articulated in Texas Property Code § 12.007(a), we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to cancel the notices of lis pendens.
Plaintiffs brought a suit for conversion against Flores. They alleged that he converted property and used the proceeds to buy certain other properties. In their petition, they sought the imposition of a constructive trust on the property. They filed notices of lis pendens on the purchased properties, and sought to have a constructive trust placed on those properties.
A party may file a lis pendens during the pendency of an action involving: 1) title to real property, 2) the establishment of an interest in real property, or 3) the enforcement of an encumbrance against real property. Tbx.Peop.Code § 12.007(a). In the present case, the plaintiffs seek a constructive trust in the purchased properties only to satisfy the judgment they seek against Flores. As such, the interest is no more than a collateral interest in the property. Moss v. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding). Therefore the notices of lis pen-dens are improper.
Without hearing oral argument, a majority of this Court conditionally grants the petition for mandamus directing the district judge to cancel the notices of lis pendens and vacate the earlier order refusing to cancel the notices of lis pendens. Tex.R.App.P. 122.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.