(Legal Newsline) — The First Court of Appeals has affirmed a $250,000 judgment against former MLB pitcher Clayton Hensley, who was also a standout player at Alvin Community College.
The lawsuit was brought by Bryan and Larry Alexander, who sought to collect on an unpaid promissory note, according to the First Court’s July 31 opinion.
Bryan was Hensley’s coach when he played at Alvin. Larry is Bryan’s father, and Hensley only knew him through his son.
“Hensley did well in collegiate baseball and was eventually drafted by the San Francisco Giants,” the opinion states. “He played in the Major Leagues for several years and kept in touch with Bryan during that time. They had shared interests in real estate and hunting.”
After retiring from baseball, Hensley started a software company, worked as a baseball analyst, and participated in some real estate deals. He formed Caltex Energy Resources to try and take advantage of opportunities in the downstream sector of the oil and gas business, particularly the purchase and sale of refined petroleum products.
Bryan reached out to Hensley to discuss potential fuel deals in the European market. Court records, however, show the parties disagreed whether the promissory note was properly executed.
Hensley suggested that the copy of the promissory note admitted at trial was not authentic, pointing to staple marks, color variations, and the background. He also testified that, even though he was copied on an email transmitting the promissory note, and he acknowledged receiving the email, he did not know what was attached to the email.
Court records also show Hensley sent the Alexanders wiring instructions to wire funds to Caltex. According to the Alexanders, on August 1, 2016, after Hensley told them that he had signed the note, the Alexanders wired the money as required under the terms of the note. Hensley received the money on behalf of Caltex.
At trial, the jury found that Hensley signed and ratified a promissory note held by the Alexanders. The trial court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, awarding the Alexanders $250,000 in damages plus interest, court costs and expenses and attorney fees.
On appeal, Hensley challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings.
“Given the Alexanders’ testimony, the jury’s finding that they owned the promissory note is legally sufficient,” the opinion states. “The credibility issues raised by Hensley do not render the jury’s finding that the Alexanders’ owned the note to be outweighed by the great weight and preponderance of any contrary evidence.”
Appeals case No. 01-24-00550-CV
This report was produced by Legal Newsline and distributed by The Center Square as part of a content-sharing agreement. Reach editor John O’Brien at john.obrien@therecordinc.com.
Originally published on legalnewsline.com, part of the BLOX Digital Content Exchange.
Please disable your ad blocker, whitelist our site, or purchase a subscription
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.