Schmidt v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 20 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-18-00846-CV,01-18-00846-CV |
| Citation | 584 S.W.3d 640 |
| Parties | David Gordon SCHMIDT d/b/a ABC Bonding Company and Greenbrier Equities, LLC, Appellants v. Brenda CRAWFORD, Carlos Perez, Anthony Williams, Annie J. Butler, Anthony Franco, Ambria Fike, Debra Johnson, Victoria Wells, Mildred English, Ottis Williams, Randy L. Laster, Pable Murillo, Emma Murillo, Craig Cooper, Nelson Martin Armstrong, Mazen Breir, Benito Martinez, Tanya Pedroza, Sergio Pedroza, Carolyn Etheridge, Louise Seals, Terry Moore, Maria Ramirez, Pete Garcia, Denise Baldwin, William T. Etherton, Patricia Etherton, Sharon Williams, Heleodora Cruz, Hattie Hemphill, Agustina Roberts, Louis Roberts, Emily Johnson, Iris Edith Segundo, Joanna Loaeza, Kevin Williams, Rita Williams, Yolanda Carriere, Anthony Citti, Juan Cisneros, Brandy Johnson, John Gholston, Anson Furman, Ivie Bell, Laura Diaz, Darlene Alejandro, Jesse DeLeon, Cynthia DeLeon, Jesus Vega, Beverly Vega, Ray Perfecto, Bridget Nwoko, Nemiah Clark, Earlean Williams, Lakeshea Clark, Pete Gonzales, Pat Lee, Mary Victorian, Tiffany Johnson, Elias Gamino, Tiffany Chenier, Muraline Peter, Victor Reyes, Veronica Smith, Jimmie Englett, Velvet Hilton, Stephen Lacy, Leroy Vanterpool, Patricia Wesley, Sammie L. Abraham, Edith M. Abraham, Brenda Brown, Jesus Silvestre, Felicita Aguilar, Gabino Salazar, Josefina M. Nowlin, Sandra Dorron, Jesus Velazquez, Bonnie Cephus, Josephine Rocha, Leon Jacobson, Linda Jacobson, Olivia Sims, Constance Gay, Ensley Clinton, Llewel Walters, Mauro Reynerio Fernandez Cruz, Anthony Thompson, Juan Carlos Rios Ramirez, Phillip C. Clark, Beatrice Pena, Carol Askew, Brian Cormier, Steven Cruz, Leroy Wells, Harold Kinnard, Plushatte Davis, Deidre Dobbins, David Spaulding, Michael Kossa, Diana Kosas, Serafin Luna, Deborah Berryhill, O'Keefe Allen, Christopher P. Vana, Sr., Grace Hamilton, Belinda Spencer, Renora Riggins, Ivonne Jackson, Edith Ordonez, Wilber Ordonez, Tessie Lynch, Katherine Sanders, Charles Mourning, Iliana Perez, Tiburcia Zayala, Christopher Green, Donald Shelton, Donald Credeur, Avis Battle, Grace Phillips, Darolyn Lewis, Raymond Lewis, Jr., Michael Miller, Esther Doublin, Marcos Ortiz, Robert Sanchez, Rosalinda Sanchez, Tiffany Shannon, Altha Davis, Herman Davis, Nelson Hebert, Melvin Herrera, Juanita Cano, Patrice Boyce, Edson Dronberger, Charlotte Wynn, Jacqueline Hill, Atanacio Ruiz, Eloisa Ruiz, Roberto Hernandez, Clementina Hernandez, Jim Silva, Luz Batalla, Ismael Medina, Hortencia Rodriguez, Alfred Watson, Jerry Escalante, Lloyd Castilow, Luis Pena, Carey Murray, Luz Wildman, Carl Earl, Ismael Avellaneda, Kendalia Davis, Gail Fritz, Lee Cartwright, Orfilia Miranda, Jainell Letryce Velazquez Butler, Courtney Mitchell, Travis Waters, Debbie Waters, Anthony Norris, Sharon A. Norris, Adelmira Salinas, Sarah Landry, Gloria Garcia, Joel Zamarripa, Gerardo Romo, Phillip Ross, Lakeisha Ross, Earline Durant Watkins, Gerardo Marquez, Nilza Rodriguez, Jannette Brown, Victor H. Estrada, Blanca A. Estrada, Anne Clare, James Clare, Charlene Talbott, Maria Velez, Greg Hilligiest, Randy Wilson, Saul Aguilera, Harlene Brady, Mary Flowers, Jimmie Smith, Betty R. Smith, Cynthia Jenkins, Clarence McDade, Charles O. McDonald, Lars Westerberg, Ethel O'Quinn, Jeffrey Glover, Katrina Glover, Laura Liggett, Brenda Trussel, Dale Trussell, Cecelia Rose, Vanessa Bourda, Francisco Campos, Connie Campos, Sammy J. Collins, Felicia Bowman, Kendall Wilkins, Tyronsa Wilkins, Andrew Taylor, Marque Johnson, Beverly Hensley, Yvonneya Brown, Courtney Hernandez, Albert Rowan, Toni Owens, Jimmy Kirkendoll, Joan L. Kirkendoll, Mary Ann Edjeren, Thelma Housley, Kenneth Johnson, Judith Ann Walker, Leslie Brown, Deborah Eaton, Stuart Willett, Jose Torres, Diana Salinas, Erskine Vanderbilt, Caroline Tunsel, Cathy Jones, Gail Udosen, Regina Fulton, Hector Reyes, Lucio Torres, Jr., Ernesto Lara, Jackie Thornton, Alfredo Dimas, Nancy Taylor, Reginald Cole, Cathlyn Cole, Gerald Smith For the Estate of Earnest D. Smith, Faucinda Vences, Thuyvi Vinh, Maida Khatchikian, Carl Earl, Troy King, Diana Romero, Sandra Pyle, Gary Dial, Maria Mendez, Anthony Harris, Keena Harris, Katherine Stewart, Mary Currie, Siverand Sterling, Jr., Larry Tankersley, Leslie Jones, Gonzalo Pena, John Long, Beverly Long, Terry Randle, and Felicia Frank, Appellees |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Hundreds of plaintiffs sued David Gordon Schmidt, doing business as ABC Bonding Company, and Greenbrier Equities, LLC, contending that Schmidt and Greenbrier filed illegal liens on the plaintiffs' homesteads. Schmidt and Greenbrier moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under the Citizens Participation Act. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the Act did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs allege multiple causes of action. The gravamen of their claims is that Schmidt and Greenbrier had the plaintiffs sign deeds of trust as to their homes as security for bail bond loans, fraudulently altered these deeds to inflate the amount of indebtedness, and later filed the deeds in Harris County's real property records, thereby creating illegal liens on the plaintiffs' homesteads. Among other relief, the plaintiffs sought statutory damages of at least $10,000 per illegal lien. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 12.001 –.007. They also sought to quiet title and a declaration that the liens are invalid because they violate various provisions of article XVI, section 50 of the Texas Constitution.
Schmidt and Greenbrier filed general denials. They also moved to dismiss the suit under the Citizens Participation Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 27.001 –.011. In their motion, Schmidt and Greenbrier stated that the plaintiffs represented in the deeds of trust they signed that the homes they pledged as security were not homesteads. Schmidt and Greenbrier contended that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under the Act because the claims were based on, related to, or were made in response to Schmidt and Greenbrier's exercise of their right to free speech or right to petition—specifically, the filing of the deeds of trust in Harris County's real property records.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The court reasoned:
The Plaintiffs' claims do not impact a matter of public concern as defined in CPRC 27.001(7) simply because they relate to public filings, or because those filings may be "false." Imagine the havoc if every routine public filing was "a matter of public concern" simply because it was a public filing. Further, if filing suit under Chapter 12 of the CPRC implicates the anti-SLAPP statute, then Chapter 12 is essentially abrogated.
Schmidt and Greenbrier contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss under the Act. The plaintiffs respond with three counterarguments. First, they argue that their claims fall outside the scope of the Act because their claims are not based on, related to, or made in response to Schmidt and Greenbrier's exercise of their right to free speech or right to petition. Second, they contend that even if their claims did come within the scope of the Act, their claims come within a statutory exemption for commercial speech. Third, the plaintiffs contend that application of the Act to their claims abrogates their rights under article XVI, section 50 of the Texas Constitution, which governs homestead liens.
We review de novo a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss under the Citizens Participation Act.
Holcomb v. Waller Cty. , 546 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). We likewise interpret the Act and decide whether it applies to a suit de novo. See Youngkin v. Hines , 546 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. 2018) ; Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Houston v. John Moore Servs. , 500 S.W.3d 26, 39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).
In assessing whether a suit or challenged claim comes within the Act's scope, we rely on the Act's language, interpreting it as a whole rather than reading its individual provisions in isolation from one another. Youngkin , 546 S.W.3d at 680. We interpret the Act according to the plain, common meaning of its words, unless a contrary purpose is evident from the context or a plain reading of its text leads to absurd results. Id. We cannot judicially amend the Act by imposing requirements that the Act does not or by narrowing its scope contrary to its terms. Cadena Comercial USA Corp. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n , 518 S.W.3d 318, 337 (Tex. 2017) ; see ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman , 512 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam) (). Nor can we substitute the words of the Act to give effect to what we think the Act should say. ExxonMobil , 512 S.W.3d at 901.
The Act directs us to liberally interpret its provisions to fully effectuate its purpose, which "is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 27.002, 27.011(b). To accomplish this purpose, the Act provides a summary procedure in which a party may move for dismissal on the basis that the claims made against it are based on, relate to, or are in response to the party's exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003(a) ; see In re Lipsky , 460 S.W.3d 579, 589–90 (Tex. 2015). This summary procedure requires a trial court to dismiss a suit, or particular claims within a suit, that demonstrably implicate these rights, unless the non-moving p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teachers Fed. Credit Union v. Esquivel
...residents." Caliber Oil & Gas, LLC v. Midland Visions 2000 , 591 S.W.3d 226, 240 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2019, no pet.) (citing Schmidt v. Crawford , 584 S.W.3d 640, 651 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) ). When the speech at issue relates to a matter of "political, social, or other c......
- In re Interest of J.S.
-
Caliber Oil & Gas, LLC v. Midland Visions 2000
...requires that a communication about real property have an impact on more than the party's personal financial well-being. Schmidt v. Crawford , 584 S.W.3d 640, 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.).9 In this case, Caliber's communications with Whitley, Selmon, Clement, and the He......
-
McNally v. McNally
...XVI, § 50(a). On this basis, he sued to quiet title and sought a declaration that the May 1984 deed of trust was void. See Schmidt v. Crawford, 584 S.W.3d 640, 656 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Valerie and Kelly counter that res judicata bars Joseph's claims and, alternativ......