Morris v. City of Midland
| Docket Number | 11-22-00209-CV |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Parties | PAULA MORRIS, Appellant v. CITY OF MIDLAND, TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 385th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV57069
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J [5]
Appellant Paula Morris, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Midland (the City) and the trial court's final judgment for a permanent injunction against Morris because of her repeated violations of certain municipal ordinances. Morris contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Morris's request for court-appointed counsel; (2) the trial court erred when it considered the City's requests for summary judgment and a permanent injunction without a record being made of the proceedings; (3) the permanent injunction ordered by the trial court was "unconstitutionally vague" and violated Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; (4) the trial court abused its discretion when it granted permanent injunctive relief because the City did not make a showing of irreparable injury and the lack of an adequate remedy at law; (5) the trial court's grant of the City's motion for summary judgment was improper because the nuisance ordinance is invalid, issues of material fact exist, and the trial court did not view the facts in a light most favorable to Morris; and (6) the trial court's contempt findings were illegal, violated due process, and the fines imposed exceeded the per incident cap. We affirm.
This case originates from Morris's use of residential property in violation of multiple City of Midland Municipal Code provisions. Beginning on July 18, 2011, the City took numerous photographs documenting the accumulation of debris and other city ordinance violations occurring on properties owned by Morris. Ordinance violations were documented through September 2020. The City filed actions against Morris in municipal court and Morris was found guilty of ten independent violations of city ordinances between August 23, 2012 and July 12, 2019. The violations for which she was found guilty included accumulations of debris and parking a trailer or recreational vehicle in a residential area. Numerous garage sales also occurred on the property from 2012 through 2020, in excess of the number permitted by city ordinance.[1] As a consequence of her ongoing violations of the city ordinances, the municipal court fined Morris. Morris did not pay all of the fines, and the City sent her multiple letters requesting payment.
Because of Morris's repeated violations of City ordinances, the City filed its original petition against Morris in this case on September 28, 2020, seeking a temporary injunction, a permanent injunction, and civil penalties under Sections 54.017 and 211.012(c) of the Local Government Code. See Tex. Local Gov't Code Ann. § 54.017 (West 2021), § 211.012(c) (West 2016). Morris filed a pro se answer on October 23, 2020.[2] The trial court set a hearing on the City's request for a temporary injunction for November 20, 2020. On the day of the temporary injunction hearing, Morris filed a motion for continuance. The City objected to Morris's request for a continuance and expressed concerns regarding Morris's history of requesting continuances in previous cases. Despite the City's arguments, the trial court granted the continuance and reset the hearing for December 10, 2020. The hearing was again reset for December 18, 2020. On December 22, 2020, the trial court granted the City's request for a temporary injunction against Morris and set a trial on the merits for February 23, 2021.
On January 13, 2021, the City filed a motion to show cause against Morris; the motion was based on her alleged violations of the temporary injunction. The underlying basis of the motion concerned Morris's alleged ongoing violations of the Midland Municipal Code, which the temporary injunction enjoined her from violating. After several resets, the trial court set the show-cause hearing for February 23, 2021. On February 22, Morris again filed a motion for continuance due to complications associated with an ice storm, which the trial court granted.
On the same day that she filed her motion for continuance, Morris filed a motion for a court-appointed attorney. Morris re-urged this motion on March 5, 2021. The trial court denied the motion on March 12. On the same day, the trial court held a hearing on the City's motion to show cause and signed its first order finding Morris in contempt for violating the temporary injunction. Morris was fined $500, which she paid on March 26, 2021. On March 12, Morris filed a "motion for permission to file an amicus brief," which included an affidavit by an acquaintance of Morris who commented about Morris's health and general well-being.
After Morris requested a jury trial and paid the jury fee, the trial court scheduled the case for a jury trial on August 2, 2021. Morris then filed another motion for continuance on July 16, 2021, claiming that she could not participate in the trial because of a head injury she had sustained in an automobile accident, and related mental health issues. The trial court granted the continuance and reset the trial for November 1, 2021. On October 6, 2021, Morris filed another continuance because of a claimed family emergency. The trial court, again, granted the continuance and reset the trial for March 14, 2022. On March 3, 2022, Morris filed yet another motion for a continuance, alleging that she was suffering from complications from a new head injury, various illnesses, and other health ailments- the City opposed this motion and the trial court denied it. Morris did not appear at trial on March 14, 2022, because she was allegedly hospitalized. Therefore, the trial court reset the trial for July 11, 2022.
On March 16, 2022, the City filed its second motion to show cause due to Morris's failure to comply with the temporary injunction; the trial court set this motion for a hearing for March 21, 2022. Subsequently, the trial court signed its second order on April 1, 2022, finding Morris in contempt. On April 29, Morris filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new show-cause hearing; she again requested a court-appointed attorney. In support of her request for a court-appointed attorney, Morris alleged, as she had before, that she suffered from mental health issues and numerous head injuries. Morris filed a second motion for leave and for a court-appointed attorney on May 31, 2022, citing again to her various illnesses to support her argument.
On May 16, 2022, the City filed a motion for summary judgment and a third motion to show cause. The trial court set a hearing on these motions for June 23, 2022. Morris did not appear. On July 24, 2022, the trial court signed an order granting the City's motion for summary judgment and later signed a final judgment for a permanent injunction against Morris on June 28, 2022. On July 6, 2022, Morris filed a motion to set aside the final judgment claiming that she was out of town on "family business" when these motions were presented to the trial court.
Morris filed a notice of appeal on July 22, 2022. Morris later filed a request for a court-appointed attorney for purposes of appeal on September 28, 2022. On November 29, 2022, the City filed a fourth motion to show cause, and on December 16, 2022, the trial court signed its third order finding Morris in contempt.
We review the trial court's decision whether to appoint counsel for an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003). "The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles; in other words, whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable." Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). A trial court also abuses its discretion by failing to analyze or apply the law correctly. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).
The grant or refusal of either a permanent or temporary injunction is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the trial court; and, on appeal, review of the trial court's action is limited to the question of whether the action constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Walter v. Walter, 127 S.W.3d 396, 398 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). "But when the trial court issues a permanent injunction in response to a party's motion for summary judgment, our review is governed by the summary judgment standards of review." See Reed v. Lake Country Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., No. 02-14-00282-CV, 2016 WL 3655589, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op); Jim Rutherford Invs., Inc. v. Terramar Beach Cmty. Ass'n, 25 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).
We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Concho Res., Inc. v. Ellison, 627 S.W.3d 226, 233 (Tex. 2021) (citing Valence Operating Co. v Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005)). To prevail under the traditional summary judgment standard, the movant has the burden to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(a), (c); ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann, 547 S.W.3d 858, 865 (Tex. 2018); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2003). If the movant establishes its summary judgment burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude the grant of summary judgment. Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC,...
To continue reading
Request your trial