In re Workman

• Docket Number: 11-22-00321-CV
• Decision Date: 15 June 2023
• Citation: In re Workman, 670 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App. 2023)
• Parties: GUARDIANSHIP OF Sheila McConnell WORKMAN, an Incapacitated Person
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

670 S.W.3d 414

GUARDIANSHIP OF Sheila McConnell WORKMAN, an Incapacitated Person

No. 11-22-00321-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Opinion filed June 15, 2023

Stephen O. Crawford, Crawford & Sublett, 603 Elm Street, Suite 501, Graham, TX 76450, William Thompson, 3100 McKinnon Street, Suite 1125, Dallas, TX 75201, John Bash III, Emiliano Delgado, 300 W. 6^th St., Suite 2010 Austin, TX 78701, for appellant.

William A. Hicks, Sharon Hicks, 100 S. Commercial Ave., Suite 207, Coleman, TX 76834, for appellee.

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

W. STACY TROTTER, JUSTICE

Appellant, Mike Reilly, prepared and sent a letter to Phyllis Copeland and Connie Wooten concerning the pending sale of their sister Sheila's interest in a family property.Reilly's letter stated that the contract to sell Sheila's interest was "likely invalid" and that Sheila's husband "was possibly, fraudulently induced" to sign the agreement on her behalf.After they received the letter, Phyllis and Connie filed a petition seeking a guardianship over Sheila.They also secured a temporary restraining order, which halted the sale.Appellee, Texas Ranch Farm & Minerals, LLC, the buyer, intervened in the guardianship proceeding and asserted causes of action against Reilly for tortious interference with a contract and civil conspiracy.

This appeal concerns the trial court's denial of Reilly's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (the TCPA).TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001 –.013(West 2020& Supp. 2022).In his motion, and on appeal, Reilly maintains that the causes of action asserted by Texas Ranch intrude on his right to encourage his fellow citizens to seek judicial review of civil disputes and that Texas Ranch has failed to meet its prima facia burden as to each asserted cause of action, as required by the TCPA.

We hold that the causes of action asserted against Reilly by Texas Ranch implicate Reilly's right to petition under the TCPA.However, we also conclude that Texas Ranch met its prima facie burden on its cause of action for tortious interference with a contract.Therefore, we(1) affirm the trial court's order denying Reilly's motion to dismiss in connection with Texas Ranch's cause of action for tortious interference with a contract but (2) reverse the trial court's order denying Reilly's motion to dismiss with respect to Texas Ranch's cause of action for civil conspiracy, and we remand that claim to the trial court for a determination of Reilly's claims for attorneys’ fees and sanctions.

I.Factual Background

Phyllis and Connie each own an undivided one-third interest in a 577-acre property near Possum Kingdom Lake.The remaining one-third interest is owned by the estate of Sheila McConnell Workman; Sheila passed away in late 2022.In addition to their respective one-third interests, Connie, Phyllis, and the estate of Sheila own a preferential option to purchase each other's interests.

Prior to her death, Sheila was mentally and physically disabled.As such, her affairs were managed by Edd Workman, her husband, under a durable power of attorney.

In February 2022, Edd entered into a Farm and Ranch Contract and agreed to sell Sheila's interest to Texas Ranch.¹

Shortly after Edd signed the agreement, Reilly claims that he was approached by Melinda Harvey, who was Edd and Sheila's daughter.Because Melinda was concerned that Texas Ranch may have taken advantage of Edd in negotiating the sale, she asked Reilly—a real estate agent—for advice.Reilly spoke with Edd and reviewed several documents associated with the transaction.Reilly then offered to arrange for the Workmans to meet and discuss the situation with an attorney, Tim Mendolia.In fact, Reilly paid Mendolia an initial retainer on their behalf.

Reilly also prepared and sent a letter to Phyllis and Connie.Reilly's letter began by informing the sisters that Edd had signed a "purported contract" to sell Sheila's interest.The letter placed the word "contract" in scare quotes and stated that the agreement was "likely invalid."It further stated that Edd "was possibly, fraudulently induced" to sign the contract.

Reilly's letter stated that he was trying to help Edd and Sheila based on his conviction that his father—who employed Edd as a foreman on a family property in the 1960s—would have done the same thing.Toward that end, the letter indicated that Reilly had retained Mendolia to represent Edd and Sheila and that Mendolia would formally notify them of their right to exercise their purchase options.The letter concluded with a request for a meeting with Phyllis and Connie to "discuss various options to move forward."

The record contains no direct evidence that Reilly subsequently met with Phyllis and Connie as the letter suggested, and Reilly specifically denies that such a meeting took place.However, on April 12, 2022, Phyllis and Connie filed an application to have Phyllis appointed as guardian over Sheila, alleging that Edd was not providing appropriate care for Sheila.In their petition, Phyllis and Connie point to Reilly's letter as evidence of Sheila's inability to care for herself; a copy of the letter was attached to their application.Shortly after the guardianship application was filed, the trial court signed a temporary restraining order, which prohibited Edd from undertaking any actions to transfer or dispose of Sheila's real or personal property.²Thereafter, Edd, Connie, and Phyllis entered into a letter agreement to keep the restraining order in effect until an Attorney Ad Litem had investigated the matters in dispute.

Texas Ranch intervened in the guardianship proceeding and filed a third-party action against Reilly, Melinda, and James A. Thompkins, who is alleged to be Melinda's boyfriend.The intervention asserts causes of action against Reilly for tortious interference with a contract and civil conspiracy.

II.Analysis

Reilly filed this appeal after the trial court denied his TCPAmotion to dismiss.³One purpose of the TCPA is to protect citizens from retaliatory lawsuits that are meant to intimidate or silence them on matters of public concern.

Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Hall , 579 S.W.3d 370, 376(Tex.2019);In re Lipsky , 460 S.W.3d 579, 584(Tex.2015)(orig. proceeding).The Legislature enacted the TCPA"to safeguard ‘the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law’ " while, at the same time, protecting a person's right "to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury."Kinder Morgan SACROC, LP v. Scurry Cnty. , 622 S.W.3d 835, 847(Tex.2021)(quotingCIV. PRAC. & REM. § 27.002 ).

To effectuate this dual purpose, the TCPA employs a three-step process to determine whether a lawsuit or claim is subject to dismissal.Montelongo v. Abrea , 622 S.W.3d 290, 296(Tex.2021).First, the movant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a legal action is based on, or in response to, the movant's exercise of one of three rights protected by the statute: (1) the right of free speech, (2) the right to petition, or (3) the right of association.CIV. PRAC. & REM. §§ 27.003(a), .005(b);see alsoMontelongo , 622 S.W.3d at 296.Next, if the movant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish by "clear and specific evidence" a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 27.005(c);Montelongo , 622 S.W.3d at 296.Finally, even if the nonmovant meets that burden, the trial court is required to dismiss the legal action if the movant establishes an affirmative defense or other grounds on which the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 27.005(d).

Reilly raises two issues, in which he asserts that the trial court's rulings did not comply with the first two steps of the process.We review de novo the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss.Rossa v. Mahaffey , 594 S.W.3d 618, 624(Tex. App.—Eastland 2019, no pet.).Further, whether the TCPA applies to a particular claim is a question of statutory construction that we also review de novo.Youngkin v. Hines , 546 S.W.3d 675, 680(Tex.2018).

1.Step One: Does the TCPA Apply?

To invoke the protections of the TCPA, Reilly must show that the claims asserted by Texas Ranch are "based on or in response to" his exercise of a protected right.CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 27.003(a).In assessing whether a protected right is at issue, we consider the pleadings and affidavits that state the facts on which liability is based to determine the true nature of the dispute.SeeCIV. PRAC. & REM. § 27.006(a);David H. Arrington Oil & Gas Operating, LLC v. Wilshusen , 630 S.W.3d 184, 190(Tex. App.—Eastland2020, pet. denied);see alsoClayton Mountain, LLC v. Ruff , No. 11-20-00034-CV, 2021 WL 3414754, at *5(Tex. App.—Eastland Aug. 5, 2021, no pet.)(mem. op.).The plaintiff's pleading is the "best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action."Hersh v. Tatum , 526 S.W.3d 462, 467(Tex.2017)(quotingStockyards Nat'l Bank v. Maples , 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300, 1302(Tex.1936) );Wilshusen , 630 S.W.3d at 190.Therefore, we determine the TCPA's applicability based on a holistic review of the pleadings.Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LLC , 547 S.W.3d 890, 897(Tex.2018).

In this case, Reilly maintains that the facts alleged by Texas Ranch are based on his protected "right to petition."Under the TCPA, the right to petition includes, among other things, "a communication that is reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a ... judicial ... body. "CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 27.001(4)(C)(emphasis added).As such, we must ascertain whether Reilly's alleged communications with the sisters"encouraged" litigation and judicial consideration or review of a disputed issue.

Texas Ranch's Second Amended Petition in Intervention alleges...