Haven Chapel United Methodist Church v. Leebron

• Decision Date: 28 July 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 14-15-00629-CV,14-15-00629-CV
• Citation: Haven Chapel United Methodist Church v. Leebron, 496 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App. 2016)
• Parties: Haven Chapel United Methodist Church, Appellant v. William Michael Leebron, II, E.J. King, Brazoria County Commissioners Court, and Marlene Mouchette, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

496 S.W.3d 893

Haven Chapel United Methodist Church, Appellant

v.William Michael Leebron, II, E.J. King, Brazoria County Commissioners Court, and Marlene Mouchette, Appellees

NO. 14-15-00629-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed July 28, 2016

Veronica L. Davis, West Columbia, TX, for Appellant.

Christopher Garza, Jeri Yenne, Angleton, TX, Russell S. Briggs, Houston, TX, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Wise.

OPINION

Ken Wise, Justice

Appellant Haven Chapel United Methodist Church appeals the trial court's judgment granting the appellees' motions for summary judgment and declaring that a platted road or right-of-way exists between the Church's property and that of another property owner. In nine issues, the Church challenges the trial court's jurisdiction and rulings rejecting the Church's claims that the disputed property was never a road and is owned by the Church. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Sometime in the 1800s, the town of Columbia (now known as the city of West Columbia and the unincorporated community of East Columbia) was platted in Brazoria County. Our record does not contain an original map or plat filed of record in the County. The map in evidence, titled “Map of Columbia,” was compiled by the Brazoria County Abstract Company on behalf of several residents of West Columbia and East Columbia in 1945 and recorded in the County's deed records (the “1945 Map”). The 1945 Map sets out numerous tracts of land, lots, and named roads.

The portion of the 1945 Map relevant here is located in the area now known as East Columbia at Blocks 14 and 15. The property at issue is a 55.5-foot wide strip platted as Milam Street, sometimes spelled “Milum,” located between Blocks 14 and 15 (the “Property”). The Property is unbuilt and the County has not accepted it as a county road for maintenance.

The Church alleges that it became the owner of lots 129 and 130 out of Block 15 in 1884. The Church also claims that it owns the Property by title or adverse possession, and that no road has ever run across the Property. On the opposite side of the Property is part of lot 120 and lots 121–124 of Block 14. In 2010, lots 121–124 were purchased by William Leebron, II.

In the spring of 2011, the Church sued Leebron, the Brazoria County Commissioners Court, and E.J. King (then the County Judge), asserting numerous claims and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a determination that the Church holds title to the Property. Among other things, the Church alleged that Leebron committed trespass and nuisance related to his use of the Property. The County answered and asserted a counterclaim for declaratory judgment.¹ Leebron was never served with process, however, and he died on July 6, 2013.

In 2011, the trial court denied the Church's request for a temporary injunction. The Church appealed the interlocutory order, but this Court granted the appellees' motion to dismiss because the notice of appeal was not filed timely.

The Church did not actively prosecute the case against the defendants for several years. On January 12, 2015, after the trial court notified the Church that the case was going to be dismissed, the Church agreed to a docket control order, which provided that all discovery would be completed by March 6, 2015. The deadline for dispositive motions was set for March 31, 2015. The Church also filed a “Suggestion of Death and Request for Issuance of Scire Facias” regarding Leebron. No contact information for any administrator, executor, or heir was provided, however, and the scire facias was never issued.

On February 19, 2015, the Church filed an amended petition “substituting” Marlene Mouchette for Leebron “pursuant to Rule 151 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure... as she is the property owner of the land which is the object of this suit.” In the amended petition, the Church added allegations that the defendants also were in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb –2000bb-4, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc –2000cc-5, (the “federal statutes”).

On March 6, 2015, the County filed traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions on all of the Church's claims. As part of its traditional summary judgment motion, the County requested a declaratory judgment that the Property was an expressly dedicated public right-of-way that had not been abandoned or adversely possessed, and that the Church had no ownership rights in the right-of-way. The County also filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss as baseless the Church's claims under the federal statutes.

In response, the Church filed its own hybrid no-evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment as well as responses to Brazoria County's motions and a Second Amended Petition.² The County filed a response to the Church's motion for summary judgment and lodged objections to the Church's evidence.

The trial court granted all of the County's dispositive motions on March 30, 2015, except for the County's request for declaratory judgment, which the trial court granted by separate order on April 9, 2015. The trial court also sustained all but one of the County's objections to the Church's evidence and denied the Church's summary judgment motion on April 9, 2015.³

On May 7, 2015, Mouchette moved for summary judgment on the Church's claims for trespass and nuisance against her as the legal substitute for Leebron. Mouchette alleged that there was a fatal defect of parties because she was not the administrator, executor, or heir of Leebron and therefore was an improper party under Rule 152 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.⁴ Mouchette also moved for summary judgment on the Church's claims because Leebron was never served with citation and any alleged trespass or nuisance committed on the Property occurred more than two years before the addition of Mouchette as a defendant. On June 17, 2015, the trial court granted Mouchette's motion for summary judgment.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Church raises nine issues, contending that the trial court erred or abused its discretion by: (1) making road determinations when it lacked jurisdiction to do so; (2) finding that a road had been established; (3) granting declaratory judgment to the County because it raised no affirmative grounds for relief; (4) granting summary judgment on the basis that a public road or right-of-way had been dedicated; (5) accepting incompetent summary judgment evidence from the County; (6) striking the Church's claims pertaining to religious discrimination pursuant to Rule 91a; (7) granting a judgment that is void for vagueness; (8) granting summary judgment without requiring the County to produce discovery; and (9) granting summary judgment to Mouchette and in essence bifurcating the case.

We first address the Church's jurisdictional complaint. Concluding that the trial court had jurisdiction over the dispute, we then address, in turn, the Church's challenges to the trial court's grant of the County's no-evidence summary judgment motion, the County's declaratory judgment, and Mouchette's summary judgment motion.

Standards of Review

We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett , 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.2005). In reviewing either a no-evidence or traditional summary judgment motion, we must take as true all evidence favorable to the non-movant and draw every reasonable inference and resolve all doubts in favor of the non-movant. M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich , 28 S.W.3d 22, 23–24 (Tex.2000) (per curiam); Mendoza v. Fiesta Mart, Inc. , 276 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).

A no-evidence motion for summary judgment is essentially a motion for a pretrial directed verdict. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) ; Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish , 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex.2009). After an adequate time for discovery, a party without the burden of proof may, without presenting evidence, seek summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to support one or more essential elements of the non-movant's claim or defense. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The non-movant is required to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact supporting each element contested in the motion. Id. ; Timpte Indus. , 286 S.W.3d at 310. Generally, we first review the no-evidence summary judgment motion. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex.2004).

The party moving for a traditional summary judgment has the burden to show that no material fact issue exists and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) ; Willrich , 28 S.W.3d at 23. To be entitled to traditional summary judgment, a defendant must conclusively negate at least one essential element of each of the plaintiff's causes of action or conclusively establish each element of an affirmative defense. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell , 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex.1997). Evidence is conclusive only if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions. City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 816 (Tex.2005). Once the defendant produces sufficient evidence to establish the right to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with competent controverting evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler , 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.1995).

Under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, “a person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights,...