Earnest Taylor and Lisa Taylor D/B/A T & S Enterprises v. Alfredo Cantu and Lynn A. Cantu ( 2019 )

Opinion issued June 20, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-01027-CV
———————————
EARNEST TAYLOR AND LISA TAYLOR D/B/A T & S ENTERPRISES,
Appellants
V.
ALFREDO CANTU, LYNN A. CANTU, VELA RANCH, L.L.C., AND
BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 23rd District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 818916-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Earnest and Lisa Taylor d/b/a T & S Enterprises appeal from the
trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction against them in their suit over
property ownership against appellees Alfredo and Lynn Cantu. In two issues, the
Taylors contend that the trial court abused its discretion in signing its June 25, 2018
temporary injunction order because the order fails to (1) fix the amount of security
to be given by the Cantus and (2) set forth whether the order was necessary to prevent
injury to the Cantus and how the Cantus would be injured in the interim. Appellants
argue that the order fails to comply with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 683 and
684 and is, therefore, void. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Background
On June 3, 2015, the Taylors filed suit against the Cantus asserting claims for
trespass to try title and nuisance. In their petition, the Taylors alleged that they were
the owners of a tract of land located in Brazoria County and that the Cantus
trespassed on their property and caused damage to it, thereby creating a permanent
nuisance. The Taylors sought to recover actual damages, exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees, a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction, and court
costs. On June 3, 2015, the trial court granted the Taylors’ application for a
temporary restraining order and set a hearing on their application for a temporary
injunction for June 12, 2015.
On June 10, 2015, Brazoria County intervened in the suit and sought a
temporary and permanent injunction as well as declaratory relief. In its petition,
Brazoria County alleged that the property in question—a 40-foot wide platted
2
road/right-of-way that abuts and is perpendicular to County Road 192—was
dedicated to the public as reflected in a 1911 Plat. Brazoria County further alleged
that the Taylors, despite being previously notified that a public road/right-of-way
existed that was dedicated to the public, repeatedly attempted to block and deny the
public’s access to the road/right-of-way.
On June 22, 2015, the Cantus filed their original answer. That same day, the
trial court signed an order denying the Taylors’ request for a temporary injunction.
On October 1, 2018, the Cantus filed their original counterpetition and
applications for temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent
injunction, and for declaratory relief. In their pleading, the Cantus alleged that the
Taylors do not own the 40-foot road/right-of-way dedicated to the public. The
Cantus sought a declaration that the Taylors have no ownership interest in the
road/right-of-way which is, and continues to be, dedicated to the public. The Cantus
also requested temporary and permanent injunctive relief preventing the Taylors
from obstructing access to the property in question and interfering with, among other
things, the Cantus’ right to use the disputed property. The Cantus also requested an
award of attorney’s fees. That same day, the trial court granted the Cantus’
application for a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for temporary orders
on October 8, 2018, which was later reset to October 18, 2018.
3
On October 10, 2018, Brazoria County filed its second amended original
petition in intervention and requests for temporary and permanent injunctive relief
and declaratory judgment. In its amended pleading, Brazoria County alleged that
the Taylors’ property had been sold at foreclosure on December 6, 2016, and that
the current property owner was Vela Ranch, L.L.C., which Brazoria County sued as
a third-party defendant in its second amended petition. Brazoria County further
alleged that, despite a successful foreclosure, the Taylors continued to occupy the
property and obstruct use of the public road/right-of-way. Brazoria County sought
injunctive relief preventing the Taylors from interfering with the public’s right to
use the road/right-of-way as well as a declaratory judgment that the Taylors have no
ownership interest in the title to the road in question and that the road/right of way
is public.
On October 18, 2018, the trial court held a temporary injunction hearing. At
the hearing, the trial court stated,
This is a hearing for a temporary injunction. And this one is on
June 22, 2015, yeah, I had a temporary injunction hearing. Parties were
reversed. I guess at that point the Taylors were asking for an injunction
against the Cantus, and what I understand now it’s the other way
around. The Cantus are asking for an injunction against the Taylors.
At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the terms of the previously entered
temporary restraining order and asked the court to determine the width of the public
4
road/right-of-way.1 Several witnesses testified and numerous exhibits were admitted
into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated, “I approve the
stipulations of the parties, of course. And I do further find that the easement is 40
feet. I will grant the injunction as requested.” On October 25, 2018, the trial court
signed a temporary injunction order.
On November 29, 2018, Brazoria County filed its traditional and no-evidence
motion for summary judgment against the Taylors, which the Cantus adopted on
November 30, 2018. On December 17, 2018, Brazoria County filed objections, a
motion to strike inadmissible evidence, and a summary judgment reply. On
December 21, 2018, the trial court signed orders (1) sustaining Brazoria County’s
objections to the Taylors’ use of (a) a warranty deed from Vela Ranch to the Taylors
dated October 15, 2018 and (b) the Taylors’ pleadings as summary judgment
evidence, and striking the evidence from the summary judgment record; (2) granting
Brazoria County’s traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion; and (3)
granting the Cantus’ traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion. The
Taylors filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order.
On April 9, 2019, the trial court signed a declaratory judgment.
1
The Taylors contended that it was 30 feet wide and the Cantus and Brazoria County
argued that it was 40 feet wide.
5
Discussion
In two issues, the Taylors contend that the trial court abused its discretion by
signing a void temporary injunction order on October 25, 2018. First, they argue
that the order is void because it fails to fix the amount of security to be given by the
Cantus as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 684. Second, they assert that
the order is void because it fails to set forth whether the order was necessary to
prevent injury to the Cantus in the interim and how the Cantus would be injured in
the interim, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.
In their original brief on appeal, Brazoria County and the Cantus argued that
(1) the Taylors’ interlocutory appeal is moot because the trial court granted Brazoria
County’s and the Cantus’ traditional and no-evidence motions for summary
judgment and dismissed the Taylors from the underlying case; (2) even if the
interlocutory appeal is not moot, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because
the Taylors stipulated to the terms of the temporary injunction order and never
objected to its form in the trial court; and (3) the form of the trial court’s order is
sufficient under applicable law.
In a supplemental brief, Brazoria County contends that this Court should
dismiss the Taylors’ interlocutory appeal as moot because the trial court recently
signed a declaratory judgment that finally disposes of all parties and all claims in the
case.
6
A. Applicable Law
When a trial court renders a final judgment while an appeal of an order
granting or denying a temporary injunction is pending, the temporary injunction
order becomes moot. Isuani v. Manske–Sheffield Radiology Grp., P.A., 802 S.W.2d
235, 236 (Tex. 1991); Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 737,
741 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet denied). When a case becomes moot
on appeal, all previous orders pertaining to the temporary injunction are set aside by
the appellate court and the case is dismissed. Isuani, 802 S.W.2d at 236. A judgment
issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if it either (1)
actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its
language, or (2) states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all
claims and all parties. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93 (Tex.
2001); see also Farm Bureau Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 163
(Tex. 2015). Texas courts lack jurisdiction over moot cases because any decision
would constitute an improper advisory opinion. Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch.
Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016).
B. Analysis
On April 9, 2019, the trial court signed a declaratory judgment which stated,
in relevant part: “This PERMANENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT finally disposes
of all parties and all claims in this case.” See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93 (stating
7
judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it “states with ‘unmistakable clarity’ that
it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties”). The trial court’s April 19,
2019 judgment is a final order that rendered the Taylors’ interlocutory appeal of the
trial court’s temporary injunction order moot. See Isuani, 802 S.W.2d at 236.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Conclusion
We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Russell Lloyd
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.
8