Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., James E. Holland and David C. Holland v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC and Mike Latta ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued June 28, 2012.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-12-00453-CV
    ———————————
    TEXAS RICE LAND PARTNERS, LTD., JAMES E. HOLLAND, AND
    DAVID C. HOLLAND, Appellants
    V.
    DENBURY GREEN-PIPELINE TEXAS, LTD. AND MIKE LATTA,
    Appellees
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
    Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 114012
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., James E. Holland, and David C. Holland
    brought this restricted appeal from a trial court’s order confirming the award of the
    commissioners in a condemnation proceeding. To prevail on a restricted appeal, a
    party must show: (1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after
    the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not
    participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not
    timely file any post-decree motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions
    of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Ins. Co. of Pa. v.
    Lejeune, 
    297 S.W.3d 254
    , 255 (Tex. 2009); see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30.
    The parties have not yet briefed this case, but they have submitted an agreed
    statement of the case. See TEX. R. APP. 34.3. According to the agreed statement of
    the case and this court’s review of the record, all four requirements for relief in a
    restricted appeal have been met: appellants filed a notice of appeal within six
    months of the date the judgment was signed, appellants were parties to the lawsuit,
    appellants did not participate in a hearing or trial because none was held, and there
    is error on the face of the record because judgment was entered without any notice
    of a trial or dispositive hearing being given to any party. See Peralta v. Heights
    Med. Ctr., Inc., 
    485 U.S. 80
    , 84, 
    108 S. Ct. 896
    , 899 (1988) (stating that failure to
    give notice of proceeding that will be accorded finality is violation of due process);
    TEX. R. CIV. P. 245 (providing for mandatory forty-five day notice of a trial setting
    in contested cases); Ramsey v. Davis, 
    261 S.W.3d 811
    , 815 (Tex. App.—Dallas
    2008, pet. denied) (stating failure to give notice of trial setting violates due
    2
    process). We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this
    cause for further proceedings. All pending motions are denied as moot.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Justices Higley, Sharp, and Huddle.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-12-00453-CV

Filed Date: 6/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015