The Texas Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court's sanctions against Phillip David Haskett in a property tax dispute involving Lindsey Arnold Pitchford. The court's decision, issued on September 15, 2026, affects both parties and clarifies the rules surrounding discovery and sanctions in tax-related cases.
This case arose from a dispute over real property in Galveston County, Texas. Haskett claimed ownership of the property, but Pitchford asserted his own claim through adverse possession. The conflict escalated when local taxing authorities filed a lawsuit in 2020 to collect unpaid taxes on the property, naming both Haskett and Pitchford as defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of the taxing authorities, leading to the sale of the property to recover the unpaid taxes.
After the sale, excess funds were deposited into the trial court's registry. Both Haskett and Pitchford filed motions to claim these excess funds. However, the trial court denied Pitchford's motion based on a tax master's recommendation, prompting Pitchford to appeal the decision. A status conference was held on December 19, 2024, which resulted in a docket control order setting a hearing for February 17, 2025.
During this time, Haskett attempted to conduct depositions related to the case. He unilaterally scheduled a deposition for Pitchford's counsel, which led to Pitchford filing a motion to quash the notice. Despite Pitchford's objections, Haskett proceeded with the deposition of a witness, Judy Griffin, without Pitchford or his counsel present. Following this incident, Pitchford sought sanctions against Haskett for what he described as discovery abuse, requesting that Haskett be barred from using Griffin's deposition and that he be awarded attorney's fees.
On January 24, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on Pitchford's motion for sanctions. Haskett did not attend the hearing, and the court subsequently struck Griffin's deposition testimony and awarded Pitchford $700 in attorney's fees as sanctions. Haskett later appealed these sanctions, arguing that they were unjust and that he was merely trying to conduct discovery within a limited timeframe.
The court ruled on several issues raised by Haskett regarding the sanctions. Haskett argued that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding sanctions while he was attempting to conduct discovery. However, the court found that Haskett had not objected to the length of the discovery period or requested additional time, which weakened his argument. The court also noted that sanctions for discovery abuse do not depend on the merits of the case.
Haskett further contended that he received insufficient notice for the sanctions hearing and that the trial court failed to make a record of the proceedings. The court ruled that Haskett had waived these arguments by not raising them during the trial. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's sanctions order.
In addition to the sanctions, Haskett also challenged a turnover order issued by the trial court, which required him to turn over any excess proceeds from the property sale to a receiver appointed in a related case. Haskett argued that the turnover order was issued while his motion to supersede the judgment was pending. However, the court found that Haskett's motion had been denied, and thus the turnover order was valid.
The court concluded its opinion by affirming both the sanctions and turnover orders, stating, "The trial court acted within its discretion in imposing sanctions and issuing the turnover order." This ruling was delivered by Justice Andrew Johnson, with Chief Justice Adams and Justice Guiney also on the panel.
The implications of this ruling are significant for future tax-related disputes in Texas. It reinforces the importance of following proper procedures during discovery and highlights the consequences of failing to comply with court orders. The ruling may also serve as a precedent for similar cases involving disputes over property ownership and tax collections.
Looking ahead, Haskett has the option to appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, although it remains to be seen whether he will pursue this route. There are also no known related cases pending at this time.