HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals has affirmed a default judgment for legal fees allegedly owed to the Norman T. Reynolds Law Firm.
According to the Dec. 18 opinion, The Reynolds Firm and its principal attorney, Norman T. Reynolds, represented VR Holdings in corporate and securities matters. Between 2009 and 2014, the firm did substantial work for VRH in connection with taking it public, including completing a merger with another company and then unwinding the merger when it proved unsuccessful.
Appellant Daniel “Bo” Ritz was involved in some of the transactions, helping to facilitate the merger between VRH and the other company. The Reynolds Firm billed VRH for its work, some of which VRH paid but most of which it did not, leaving a balance due of approximately $260,000.
When VRH failed to pay, the Reynolds Firm brought a breach of contract suit, which did not name Ritz as a defendant.
The case was sent to mediation, where Ritz, an investment banker who had invested his clients’ funds in VRH, appeared as VRH’s corporate representative.
The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement under which the Reynolds Firm would be given stock of a company in satisfaction of the amounts owed to it by VRH, but the firm never received the shares.
“Accordingly, (the firm) amended its petition to add Ritz as a defendant, making various claims against him based on the failed settlement agreement,” the opinion states. “When the case went to trial, VRH did not appear, but Ritz did.”
Justices found that the trial court entered what appears to be a default judgment against VRH for the full amount of fees it allegedly owed to the Reynolds Firm, and it also entered judgment against Ritz “in tandem and jointly” for the full amount owed by VRH, plus fees, costs, and interest.
Ritz appealed the ruling, raising six issues, one of which was that the trial court erred by entering a default judgment against him when he appeared at trial.
“In his motion for reconsideration and new trial, Ritz did not argue that the trial court erred by awarding liquidated damages against him … or otherwise argue a default judgment should not have been rendered against him,” the opinion states. “Accordingly, we conclude this issue is waived.
“We affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
Appeals case No. 01-23-00845-CV
