State v. Highland Homes, Ltd.
417 S.W.3d 478 | Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) | 2012
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Highland Homes deducted money from subcontractor Benny & Benny's paychecks for insurance coverage but never actually purchased the insurance or clearly explained the deductions. A settlement was reached, but the court rejected it because the settlement included a 90-day expiration date on checks and donated unclaimed funds to charity instead of returning them to workers. Texas law requires that unclaimed money be held indefinitely and returned to the rightful owners—not given away or allowed to expire.
Key Takeaways
- •Never accept settlement terms that include expiration dates on payment checks or redirect unclaimed funds to charity—these violate Texas law and the settlement will be overturned
- •If your employer deducts money from your paycheck for insurance or other purposes, demand clear written documentation of what was deducted, why, and proof it was actually spent on your behalf
- •Unclaimed money owed to you cannot be forfeited or donated away by court order—you have the right to claim it indefinitely under Texas property law
Private agreements cannot circumvent Texas unclaimed property law through expiration dates or cy pres distributions.
Frequently Asked Question
Can my employer keep money deducted from my paycheck if I don't claim it within 90 days?
No. Texas law says unclaimed money owed to you must be held indefinitely and returned whenever you claim it. Expiration dates and donations to charity are illegal. If your employer deducted funds for insurance or other purposes, you can claim that money at any time—there is no deadline.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.