law-unclean-hands-doctrine
Unclean Hands
In its third issue, Afri-Carib contends that even if Mabon would otherwise be entitled to a bill of
review, it came to court with unclean hands and thus it should be denied on this basis. One who
seek equity must do equity and must come to court with clean hands. See Dunnagan v. Watson,
204 S.W.3d 30, 41 (Tex.App.- Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); Flores v. Flores, 116 S.W.3d 870,
876 (Tex.App.- Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Whether equitable relief should be denied based on
unclean hands is left to the discretion of the trial court. Dunnagan, 204 S.W.3d at 41; Flores, 116 S.
W.3d at 876.
Afri-Carib Enterprised, Inc. v. Mabon Limited. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 31, 2009)(Yates)
(default judgment, bill of review)
Afri-Carib argues that Mabon has unclean hands because its corporate representative supposedly lied
during the bill of review hearing and in its answer about the location of some of Mabon’s offices and about
whether a certain individual had a relationship with Mabon. The trial court found the doctrine of unclean
was "inapplicable under the facts.” We agree. The unclean hands doctrine should not be applied unless
the misconduct at issue is connected to the subject of the litigation and the party asserting the defense has
been seriously harmed by the misconduct. See Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 231 S.W.3d 405, 423 (Tex.App.
- Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Dunnagan, 204 S.W.3d at 41. Afri-Carib has not even attempted to
explain how the alleged misrepresentations relate to the subject of the underlying litigation, much less how it
was harmed at all. We overrule Afri-Carib’s third issue.