Texas Appeals Court Reverses Decision in Case Involving $65k in Bitcoin for Farm Equipment
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the Texas Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed a default judgment in a lawsuit involving a dispute over bitcoin and heavy machinery.
Toby Haldeman and Thomas Posey had entered into an agreement where Haldeman would sell Posey a half interest in various pieces of farming and excavation equipment, including a skid steer, farm tractor, and excavator, in exchange for $65,000 paid by Posey in bitcoin. According to court filings, the two men planned to use the equipment for jobs and split the profits evenly after expenses.
Posey later sued Haldeman, claiming Haldeman failed to pay him his share of any profits from jobs, reimburse him for labor provided, or allow him access to the equipment as a co-owner. He argued Haldeman breached their contract and committed fraud. Posey provided bitcoin transaction records showing he paid $65,000 for his half-share of the machinery.
Haldeman did not file a response to the lawsuit and the trial court entered a default judgment against him in January 2023. The judgment awarded Posey $161,000 in damages for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims, plus $8,570 in attorneys’ fees. The court also ordered the equipment be partitioned and sold, with proceeds split based on the men’s 50-50 ownership shares.
Haldeman then filed a motion for a new trial, arguing his failure to respond was unintentional due to a mistaken belief settlement negotiations were ongoing, and that he had meritorious defenses to Posey’s claims. In an affidavit, Haldeman outlined defenses including allegations that Posey failed to operate the equipment as agreed and used it for personal benefit without paying appropriate rental fees.
The appeals court found Haldeman met the standard under Texas law to warrant a new trial following a default judgment. Specifically, the court determined Haldeman showed his lack of response stemmed from a mistake rather than conscious indifference. The court also ruled Haldeman established potential defenses that could change the trial outcome if proven.
Finally, the appeals panel agreed with Haldeman that granting a new trial would not unfairly injure Posey, noting Haldeman expressed willingness to promptly proceed to trial and reimburse litigation costs. The court reversed the default ruling and remanded the case for a new trial.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
