Carter v. Harvey

LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE,

dissenting and concurring.

I agree with much of the majority opinion. I agree that appellant Jay Warne Carter Jr. cannot bring a derivative equitable-adjustment claim because the claim bé-longed to a dissolved corporation; therefore, the trial court did not err by granting partial summary judgment in favor of ap-pellee Erwin Lee Harvey Sr. I also agree that Matthew Carter, Carter’s son and the owner of the removable turbine located on the real property at issue in this appeal, is not a necessary party to Harvey’s partition suit because Matthew has no possessory interest in…