in Re I-10 Poorman Investments, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 614

I-10 Poorman Investments (Poorman) developed Woodcreek Reserve and filed restrictive covenants creating the homeowners association (Association).
The Association sued Poorman alleging misrepresentation, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, statutory fraud, and DTPA violations, claiming promised common-area amenities were not conveyed.
The Association recorded notices of lis pendens under Tex. Prop. Code § 12.007 asserting real property claims.
Poorman moved to expunge the lis pendens under Tex. Prop. Code § 12.0071(c)(2), arguing the Association failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of its real property claim.
At the expunction hearing the Association presented only its attorney’s affidavit and an amended notice of lis pendens; the trial court denied Poorman’s motion.
The Court of Appeals granted mandamus, holding the Association failed to meet the evidentiary burden and directing the trial court to vacate its denial and grant the motion to expunge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the lis pendens must be expunged because claimant failed to prove by a preponderance the probable validity of a real property claim under §12.0071(c)(2)	Association relied on pleadings and attorney affidavit to show a real property claim exists	Poorman argued Association presented no competent evidence proving probable validity by preponderance	Court held Association failed evidentiary burden; affidavit was conclusory and insufficient, so expunction must be granted
Whether the trial court could deny expunction based solely on the pleadings under §12.0071(c)(1) despite movant relying on §12.0071(c)(2)	Association argued court could rely on pleadings (c)(1) to deny expunction	Poorman argued movant invoked (c)(2) so Association had to prove probable validity by evidence	Court held Cohen was distinguishable; because Poorman moved under (c)(2) Association needed evidence, not just pleadings

In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus standards)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus review)
In re CSX, 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (abuse of discretion definition)
In re Rescue Concepts, 498 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (mandamus appropriate when lis pendens remains despite no evidentiary showing)
In re Cohen, 340 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (upholding denial of expunction when trial court limited review to pleadings)
In re Miller, 433 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (lis pendens gives notice of property dispute)
Lenoir v. Marino, 469 S.W.3d 669 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (conclusory affidavit statements insufficient)
Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. 1996) (evidentiary standards for claims)
Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. 1984) (evidentiary principles)