Representative Image (AI-generated)
In a November 6, 2026, memorandum opinion available on Justia, the Texas First Court of Appeals ruled that the estate could withdraw its claims against the later buyer, Malachite Venture Corporation. The court reversed the trial court’s refusal to recognise the withdrawal and its subsequent decision granting summary judgment to the buyer on the estate’s claims. The appeals court held that the estate had filed its notice of nonsuit before judgment was entered and that the withdrawal did not prevent the buyer from pursuing any independent claims for affirmative relief.
He was initially placed on deferred adjudication but was later adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison. During the property litigation, Shiva Investment Group executed a special warranty deed in 2018, transferring its interest in the property to Dhingra’s estate. Because the 2009 deed was fraudulent, the subsequent transfer could not give Malachite valid ownership, it argued that. Because neither Dhingra nor the estate owned the property when the original lawsuit was filed, in its June 23, 2021, motion, the company argued that the estate could not maintain its title claims.
After Dhingra died, his estate filed a lawsuit challenging the transaction and seeking to recover the property. The dispute also involved criminal proceedings against Scheffler. He was charged with securing the execution of documents by deception in connection with the disputed transaction. Malachite subsequently sought summary judgment against the estate. The withdrawal applied only to the estate’s claims against the later buyer. It did not seek to dismiss the claims against Scheffler or the other defendants, nor did it attempt to eliminate any independent claims Malachite had filed. Malachite objected, arguing that the estate was attempting to avoid an unfavourable judgment after years of litigation. It also maintained that allowing the withdrawal would interfere with its ability to pursue its own counterclaims and cross-claims. The trial court accepted the objections, refused to recognise the nonsuit and subsequently granted summary judgment in Malachite’s favour.
Before the court could decide the summary judgment motion, however, the estate filed a notice of nonsuit, seeking to withdraw its claims against Malachite without prejudice.
The appeals court examined Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 162 and 163. Rule 162 generally allows a plaintiff to take a nonsuit before introducing all its evidence at trial, except rebuttal evidence. Rule 163 also allows a plaintiff involved in a case with multiple defendants to dismiss its claims against one defendant, provided the withdrawal does not prejudice another party.
The estate challenged the trial court’s decision, arguing that Texas law allowed it to withdraw its claims before a final judgment was entered. The nonsuit becomes effective when the notice is filed and does not require judicial approval.