In re Wheeler
Decision Date | 30 January 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 10–13–00402–CV.,10–13–00402–CV. |
Citation | 441 S.W.3d 430 |
Parties | In re Mae Dean WHEELER Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Wheeler Family Trust. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bryan F. Russ III, Palmos Russ McCullough & Russ, LLP, Franklin, Scott J. Scherr, Payne Malechek & Scherr Campbell & Moore PC, Bryan, for Appellant/Relator.
C. Alfred Mackenzie, Charles D. Olson, Haley & Olson PC, Waco, Charles E. Fitch, Houston, for Appellee/Respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice DAVIS, and Justice SCOGGINS.
In this mandamus proceeding, we are asked to determine whether the respondent, Judge Robert Stem of the 82nd Judicial District Court, abused his discretion by failing to transfer venue to Harris County, Texas—the county where the underlying trust was administered. For the reasons stated herein, we conditionally grant relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
It is undisputed that real party in interest, Circle X Camp Cooley, Ltd. (“Circle X”), and relator, Mae Dean Wheeler, entered into a “Purchase and Sale Agreement,” under which relator agreed to sell to Circle X certain property interests, including mineral interests, located in Robertson County, Texas. In June 2013, Circle X filed suit, seeking to enforce the “Purchase and Sale Agreement.”1 In its petition, Circle X asserted that relator refused to comply with the terms of the parties' agreement.
In response to the petition filed by Circle X, relator moved to transfer venue to Harris County, under section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code. See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.002 (West Supp.2013). Relator argued that venue is mandatory in Harris County because that is the county where the Wheeler Family Trust (“Trust”) was administered during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit and because that is the county of residence for relator as Trustee.
Circle X filed a response to relator's motion to transfer venue, wherein Circle X asserted that venue is mandatory in Robertson County, pursuant to section 15.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.011 (West 2002). Specifically, Circle X contended that venue is mandatory in Robertson County because that is where the “subject/basis of this suit is located and situated ....” Circle X also argued that: (1) the basis of its suit does not concern a trust; (2) its cause of action against relator “is for specific performance related to Defendant's breach of the contract entered into between the parties”; and (3) its choice of venue should not be disturbed, even if venue is proper in more than one county.
On October 28, 2013, the trial court conducted a hearing on the venue issue. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court signed an order denying relator's motion to transfer venue. As a result, the case was ordered to remain in Robertson County.
Thereafter, on November 14, 2013, relator filed her petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, seeking review of the trial court's order denying her motion to transfer venue. We stayed the proceedings in the trial court and requested a response from real party in interest, which was filed on December 11, 2013.
Ordinarily, mandamus relief lies when the trial court has abused its discretion and a party has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error or law, or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. See In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex.2005) (orig. proceeding). In determining whether an appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits of mandamus review outweigh the detriments. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding).
As noted above, relator contends that the trial court erred by failing to transfer venue from Robertson County to Harris County. Relator maintains that venue is mandatory in Harris County based on the mandatory-venue provisions found in section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code. See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.002.
Section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code provides that when “there is a single, non[-]corporate trustee,” the venue of an action under section 115.001 of the Texas Property Code :
Id. § 115.002(b). Section 115.001 lists the following actions that fall within the ambit of section 115.002 :
Id. § 115.001(a)–(a–1) (West Supp.2013) (emphasis added).
Circle X asserts that sections 115.001 and 115.002 of the Texas Property Code do not control venue in this case because the underlying dispute does not concern the trust itself or directly relate to the construction, administration, or interpretation of the trust. Relying heavily on the Thirteenth Court of Appeals' decision in In re J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 361 S.W.3d 703 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2011, orig. proceeding), Circle X argues that section 115.001 and 115.002 of the Texas Property Code do not apply to an action for breach of contract or specific performance. Instead, Circle X contends that the provisions of section 15.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code control venue in this case.
Essentially, in this proceeding, we must determine whether section 15.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code or section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code controls. Because section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code originates from outside of chapter 15 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, we look to section 15.016 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides that “[a]n action governed by any other statute prescribing mandatory venue shall be brought in the county required by that statute.” Tex Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.016 (West 2002) ; see In re J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 373 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012, orig. proceeding). “[I]f an action is governed by a separate mandatory venue provision, then the action shall be brought in the county required by the separate venue provision.” In re Tex. Dep't of Transp., 218 S.W.3d 74, 76 (Tex.2007) (orig. proceeding).
Section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code is a mandatory-venue provision. See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.002 ; see also In re J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 373 S.W.3d at 613. As such, section 15.016 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that the mandatory-venue provisions in section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code prevail over section 15.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.016 ; see also In re Tex. Dep't of Transp., 218 S.W.3d at 76 ( ); In re J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 373 S.W.3d at 613 ( ); In re Adan Volpe Props., 306 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2010, orig. proceeding) (concluding that, based on section 15.016, the mandatory-venue provision in section 65.023 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code prevails over the mandatory-venue provision in section 15.017 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ); In re Dole Food Co., 256 S.W.3d 851, 856 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, orig. proceeding) (same). Therefore, based on the foregoing case law, we conclude that section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code prevails over section 15.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ; accordingly, we must now determine whether venue is proper in Harris County based on the provisions of sections 115.001 and 115.002 of the Texas Property Code.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that relator is a non-corporate trustee of the trust and that the trust was administered in Harris County in the four years preceding this suit. See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.002....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barcroft v. Walton
...to subsection (a). See Act of May 16, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 451, § 11, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 801, 804-05; see also In re Wheeler, 441 S.W.3d 430, 435 n.2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, orig. proceeding) (observing that Gibbs I predated the 2007 amendments); Gibbs I, 253 S.W.3d at 868 (withdrawing......
- Guniganti v. C&S Components Co.
- Guniganti v. C & S Components Co.
-
Indi v. & of the Testamentary Trust Formed for the Benefit of William Casey Ellison (In re Green)
...for writ of mandamus to enforce a mandatory-venue provision. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 15.0642 (West 2002) ; In re Wheeler , 441 S.W.3d 430, 435–36 (Tex.App.—Waco 2014, orig proceeding). Because Section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code is a mandatory-venue statute, it is enforce......